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 28.7.2005 passed by XI-MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 42/03. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs. 12,15,400/ for the death of one Pushpendra Singh. 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 real1y necessary. 3. Heard Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned senior counsel with Shri M.S. Jain, counsel for applicant and Sushri Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal in part. 5. It is a death case rather tragic and most unfortunate one. On 16.12.2002, Father, Mother and one Son while going in Car met with a typical type of vehicular accident and died on the spot leaving behind one minor son-Vikram Pratap Singh (claimant No.1) aged-14 years as sole surviving member of family. 5. It is a death case rather tragic and most unfortunate one. On 16.12.2002, Father, Mother and one Son while going in Car met with a typical type of vehicular accident and died on the spot leaving behind one minor son-Vikram Pratap Singh (claimant No.1) aged-14 years as sole surviving member of family. It is this tragic incident which took the lives of 3 members of one family i.e. Father, Mother and Son (brother of claimant No.1), gave rise to filing of 3 claim petitions by the same claimants (appellants herein) i.e. sole surviving minor son- Vikram Singh through his grand father (father of deceased) and grand mother claiming compensation for the loss of 3 family members i.e. father, mother and brother. All the three claim petitions were filed by the claimant against same opposite parties i.e. driver, owner and Insurer of offending vehicle was involved in the accident. The respondents contested the case. Parties adduced common evidence because all the three claim petitions were clubbed together for their disposal. By common impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed all the three claim petitions filed by claimants (appellants herein) and accordingly awarded compensation as follows; (1) Claim No. 41/03 (For the death of mother Rs. 1,24,500/-). (2) Claim No. 42/03 (For the death of father Rs. 12,15,400/-). (3) Claim No. 43/03 (For the death of brother Rs. 57,0001,..). 6. So far as this appeal is concerned, it arises out of a Claim Case No. 42/03 i.e. claim in relation to the death of father of claimant. According to claimant, the compensation awarded by Tribunal in the case of his deceased father-Pushpendra Singh is on lower side hence, it deserves to be enhanced in this appeal. So this appeal is filed confining to the claim arising out of the case of father. So far as claim of other 2 i.e. mother and brother are concerned, the same was decided by this Court in MA No. 2673/05 and MA No. 3214/05 on 5.9.2007 whereby this Court partly allowed both appeals and enhanced compensation to some extent as permissible in law in the context of facts involved therein. 7. So the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in awarding a total compensation of Rs. 7. So the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in awarding a total compensation of Rs. 12,15,400/- to claimant for the death of his father-Pushpendra Singh and if not whether any case for enhancement is made out and if so to what extent? 8. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants on the question of income of deceased-Pushpendra Singh. It has come in evidence that deceased was an employee of MPEB and was working on the post of Additional Executive Engineer on the date of accident. It is not in dispute as is clear from Ex. P-43 that his gross monthly salary was Rs. 22,222/- i.e. yearly Rs. 2,66,664/-. After deduction of income tax payable on this salary amounting to Rs. 36,664/- the net yearly salary works out to Rs. 2,30,000/-. In our opinion as rightly urged by learned ' counsel for appellant, it is this figure of salary, which should have been made basis for calculating the compensation payable to dependents because it cannot be disbelieved. That apart, no attempt was made by the respondent to dispute this certificate by filing any rebuttal evidence. The Tribunal in, our opinion, was, thus, not right in para 16 to make calculation of the income of deceased working out some different figure. The approach of Tribunal in our opinion does not appear to be correct. 9. Deducting 1/3rd out of total yearly income i.e. Rs. 76,666/-, we get a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 - Rs. 76,666/- = Rs. 1,53,334/- for calculating the dependency. Applying the multiplier of 16 because the age of deceased was 39, we get a sum of Rs. 1,53,334 x 16 = Rs. 24,53,344/-. In addition a sum of Rs. 17,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards conventional heads, which we consider to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, we get a total amount of Rs. 24,53,344 + Rs. 17,000/- = Rs.24,70,344/-. 10. In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 24,70,344/- by way of compensation for the death of Pushpendra Singh. 11. The compensation awarded to the, claimants is 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. 24,70,344/- by way of compensation for the death of Pushpendra Singh. 11. The compensation awarded to the, claimants is 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. Counsel fees Rs. 1,500/-, if certified.