JUDGMENT Sapre, J. - 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act (for short called 'the Act') against an award dated 3.3.2005 passed by Additional MACT, Sonkatch in Claim Case No. 57/03. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 4,02,000/- for the death of one Santosh. This appeal is filed by claimants for enhancement as according to claimants, the compensation awarded to claimants by the Tribunal is on lower side hence it should be enhanced in this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and if so to what extent and under what head (s)? 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle which caused the accident or who is liable to pay compensation etc. and whether offending vehicle is insured or not? It is for the reason that firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal and secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour and against the respondents are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner/driver, or Insurance Company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our order by detailing facts on all these issues which are not really necessary. 3. It is a death case. On 12.3.2003, Santosh, aged around 28 years, died in vehicular accident. It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of claim petition by his parents i.e. father/mother under section 166 of the Act out of which this appeal arises against the driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle (NA-1, 2 and 3), so far as NA-4, 5 and 6 are concerned, they are widow and minor children. They i.e. NA 4, 5 and 6 also filed a claim petition in the nature of counter claim against NA-1, 2 and 3 claiming compensation for the death of Santosh as his dependents being his widow and children. They i.e. NA 4, 5 and 6 also filed a claim petition in the nature of counter claim against NA-1, 2 and 3 claiming compensation for the death of Santosh as his dependents being his widow and children. In other words both i.e. parents of deceased i.e. claimants (appellants herein) and his widow/children i.e. NA-4 to 6 filed 2 claim petition against driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle (NA-1, 2 and 3). So far as counter claim petition of widow and children was concerned, it was not registered as separate claim petition but was only tagged with the claim petition of parents i.e. claim petition No. 57/03 out of which this appeal arises as counter claim. It was contested by NA-1, 2 and 3 by filing written statement. Parties then adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and accordingly, awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,02,000/-. It was held that Santosh was aged 28 years on the date of accident, that he was working as driver that he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. The Tribunal on these factual findings applied the multiplier of 16 and calculated the dependency. The Tribunal then awarded a sum of Rs. 16,000/- towards conventional heads thereby awarding a total of Rs.4,02,000/-.The Tribunal then apportioned the compensation among the parents, widow and children in the ratio of 1/4th and 3/4th respectively. It is this determination, which is impugned by claimants i.e. parents in this appeal as also by widow and children of deceased i.e. R. 4 to 6 by filing a cross objection (dated 2.8.2008) contending that Tribunal has awarded less compensation hence it be enhanced. It is also contended that Tribunal committed an error in apportioning the compensation in the ratio of 1/4th to parents and 3/4th to widow/children. According to parents i.e. claimants, it should be 1/2 and 1/2. 4. Heard Shyam Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents No.4, 5 and none for respondents No. 1 and 2. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part. 6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants on the question of income of deceased. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part. 6. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants on the question of income of deceased. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the finding of Tribunal in so far as it deals with the monthly income of deceased. In our view, the finding of Tribunal that deceased's monthly income is Rs. 3,000/- as driver is correct. It is for the reason that firstly, we do not find any documentary evidence on record to hold that deceased's monthly salary was Rs. 5,000/-. Secondly, appreciation made by Tribunal of oral evidence relied on by claimant for recording a finding of Rs.3,000/- apears to be correct. It is, accordingly, upheld. 7. The only area where we wish to interfere is the applicability of multiplier. In our view, the Tribunal instead of applying the multiplier of 16 should have applied the multiplier of 18 as provided in schedule appended to the Act. It is because the age of deceased is 28 years. Similarly, it is just and proper to award in lump sum a total sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards conventional heads to the claimants in place of Rs. 16,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In view of foregoing discussion, the claimants are held entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 24,000x18=4,32,000/-. In addition a sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by this Court towards conventional heads makes a total compensation of Rs. 4,32,000+Rs.25,000=Rs. 4,57,000/-. 9. In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 4,57,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Santosh. 10. So far as apportionment of total awarded amount is concerned as observed supra, the Tribunal has awarded 1/4th to parents i.e. Ghasira and Smt. Laxmibai (appellant No. 1/2) whereas 3/4th to R. 4 to 6 i.e. widow and her 2 minor children. In our view, the ratio of apportionment is just and proper calling no interference. When parents of deceased are also dependent upon the income of deceased alongwith his widow and children then in such event, they (parents) too are entitled to claim fraction of share out of total awarded sum. In our view, the ratio of apportionment is just and proper calling no interference. When parents of deceased are also dependent upon the income of deceased alongwith his widow and children then in such event, they (parents) too are entitled to claim fraction of share out of total awarded sum. We, therefore, find no good ground to change the proportion i.e. 1/4th to parents and 3/4th to widow children. We, accordingly, uphold this finding of Tribunal, calling n interference. 11. The compensation awarded to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases. Indeed in such cases, no fixed and any static formula is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced and the relevant factors mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. We have gone through these authorities. In our opinion and as observed supra, every case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation. 13. In this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. 14. In view of foregoing discussion, we direct the Tribunal to allow, the parents i.e. (appellant No. 1/2) to withdrew l/4th of total awarded' sum by this Court and allow the R. 4 to 6 to withdraw 2/3rd of the awarded sum, no sooner it is deposited by the Insurance Company. Let it be so deposited within 3 months from the date of this order as an outer limit. Counsel fees Rs. 1,500/-, if certified.