Judgment A.M.Sapre, J. ( 1. ) This is an appeal, filed by the claimants, who are legal representatives of the deceased under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 3.12.2002 passed by learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khachrod in Claim Case No. 17 of 2000. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,25,000 with interest to the claimants for the death of one Narayan who died in a vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence, it needs to be enhanced. It is for claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is, whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out and, if so, to what extent? ( 2. ) Heard Mr. Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. C.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. ( 3. ) 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, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as, owner or driver or the insurance company either by way of cross- appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, we do not wish to burden our judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. ( 4. ) It is a death case. On 22.12.1999, Narayan aged around 25 years, working as salesman died in vehicular accident. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives under section 166 of the Act against owner of offending vehicle (non-applicant No. 1), driver (non-applicant No. 2) and insurer (non-applicant No. 3). It was contested by non-applicants. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 to the claimants. It was held that deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 per month. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and accordingly, determined the compensation. It was contested by non-applicants. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 to the claimants. It was held that deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 per month. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and accordingly, determined the compensation. It is against this determination the claimants have filed this appeal contending that the Tribunal has awarded less compensation hence it should be increased. ( 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. Having gone through the same, we are of the view that the monthly income of deceased should have been held as Rs. 3,000 in place of Rs. 1,500. It is for the reason that firstly, deceased was a salesman who used to sell blankets by going door to door. A person engaged in such type of work can easily earn Rs. 100 per day. We, therefore, hold that the deceaseds monthly earning was Rs. 3,000. The other area where we consider it just and proper is applicability of multiplier. Looking to the age of deceased (25 years), we consider it just and proper to apply the multiplier of 15 in place of 13. ( 7. ) After deducting 1/4th from monthly income because of more dependants, we get a sum of Rs. 2,250. This makes a yearly income of Rs. 27,000. Applying the multiplier of 15, we get a sum of Rs. 27,000 x 15 = Rs. 4,05,000. In addition, we consider it just, reasonable and proper to award in lump sum a total of Rs. 25,000 for conventional heads, thereby making a total of Rs. 4,05,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,30,000. ( 8. ) In other words, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 4,30,000 by way of compensation for the death of Narayan. ( 9. ) 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. 4,30,000 by way of compensation for the death of Narayan. ( 9. ) 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. ( 10. ) Learned counsel for the appellants 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. ( 11. ) 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 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsels fee Rs. 1,500, if certified. Appeal partly allowed.