ORDER 1. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellants have challenged award passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 16/2007 awarding only a sum of Rs. 70,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from date of award till realization for the death of Badrilal to the claimant-appellants. 2. Brief facts as alleged are that on 23.9.2006 at around 7:15 p.m. on Atavada road, Rangwasa, Thana Betma, District Indore, one Badrilal was walking along the road when motorcycle bearing registration No.MP 11B 6846 being driven by non-applicant No.2 rashly and negligently dashed against Badrilal as a result of which Badrilal received grievous injuries and while taking him to hospital he succumbed to his injuries. A case was lodged before police station Betma, Indore and the offence was registered and the challan was put up before competent Court; stating that deceased Badrilal was 70 years of age and an agriculturist, who earned about Rs. 6,000/- per month and his wife and children were dependent on him for their Livelihood; being legal representatives of the deceased Badrilal, filed claim for Rs. 25,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 3. Non-applicant No. 1 the owner of the vehicle resisted the claim stating that accident did not occur by his motorcycle arid that neither the proper age of the deceased has been disclosed nor the name of the owner of the said vehicle; stating that non-applicant No.2 Anil son of Hindusingh, who was driver was responsible for accident, prayed for dismissal of the claim. Non-applicant No.2 Anil driver of the motorcycle remained exparte. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence, however, came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of non-applicant No.2 Anil and Badrilal died as a result of grievous injuries received during the accident, awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and hence the present appeal for enhancement. 4. The finding in relation to the nature of the accident, how it occurred, who was responsible for causing the injury, liability, etc. are decided in favour of claimant by the Tribunal and in absence of any challenge to these findings by the respondents, by not filing any cross-appeal or cross-objection, these findings have become final and hence, they need not be gone into. 5. are decided in favour of claimant by the Tribunal and in absence of any challenge to these findings by the respondents, by not filing any cross-appeal or cross-objection, these findings have become final and hence, they need not be gone into. 5. Considering the facts, counsel for the appellant has urged that it is standard practice that in a death case the compensation awarded to the legal representative even in case of minor child is more than 1.5 lakh whereas in the instance case the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that the deceased was only 65 years of age and not 70 years of age as assessed by the Tribunal. Moreover, being an agriculturist he (deceased Badrilal) contributed fully to the income of the family and his sons as well as his widow-wife were dependent upon him. The Tribunal had considered the age of the widow to be 58 years of age and has assessed only Rs. 9,000/- as the annual dependency and using the multiplier of 5 assessed the loss of income at Rs. 45,000/-. Considering the principle of no fault liability the minimum amount of Rs. 50,000/- as interim relief was granted to the widow adding sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards last rites and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium, pain and suffering, etc. awarded a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- only. Counsel urged that this being on the lower side needed enhancement as already stated above. 6. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant and although it is true that the sons of the appellant are grown up and aged 30 and 35 years respectively, the important fact that cannot be marginalized is the fact that the widow is 58 years of age. Being basically agriculturist the family is always dependent on the elders, in this case also the members were dependent upon deceased Badrilal. I find that the assessment of the income is quite low and meager under the circumstances, even if the minimum Rs. 100/- is calculated per day (as in the recent cases) the annual income would amount to Rs. 36,000/- deducting one third (deceased) might be spending upon himself, the amount assessed is Rs. 24,000/and using multiplier of 5 (five) the sum could amount to Rs. 1,20,000/adding a sum of another Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of consortium and Rs. 100/- is calculated per day (as in the recent cases) the annual income would amount to Rs. 36,000/- deducting one third (deceased) might be spending upon himself, the amount assessed is Rs. 24,000/and using multiplier of 5 (five) the sum could amount to Rs. 1,20,000/adding a sum of another Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of consortium and Rs. 10,000/- for the funeral rites, loss of property, pain and suffering etc would amount to Rs. 1,50,000/-. In other words, in my considered view the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation for the death of Badrilal. 7. The compensation awarded to the claimants has to be just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstance of each case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. No fixed or static formula as such is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration. 8. Therefore, setting aside the impugned award it is modified to the extent indicated above. The enhanced sum will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from date of this order till the date of realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. Counsel fees Rs. 1,500/-, if certified.