JUDGMENT 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 14.7.1999, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Claim Case No. 204/1998. By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,80,500/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Krishna jeevan, who died in vehicular accident. According to claimants, the compensation awarded is on a 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 is compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence is made out and if so, to what extent? 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, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of 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/driver or Insurance Company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, I do not wish to burden my judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 3. It is a death case. On 10.8.1992, Krishna Jeevan, aged around 40 years, a Doctor met with a vehicular accident and died. It is his incident which gave rise to filing of a claim petition by his legal representatives claiming compensation for his death. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company. Parties adduced evidence. By impugned award, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal partly allowed and claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs. 8,80,500/- towards full payment of compensation for his death. It is this award which is sought to be challenged by the claimants on the ground that it is on a lower side and therefore, it should be enhanced. 4. I have gone through the evidence. Having gone through the evidence, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part to be extent indicated infra. 5. 4. I have gone through the evidence. Having gone through the evidence, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part to be extent indicated infra. 5. In my considered view, so far as finding relating to income of deceased is concerned, no interference is called for in such finding recorded by the Tribunal. It is for the reason that firstly the finding so recorded is based on proper appreciation of evidence and secondly no perversity was pointed out in its recording either way i.e. for its enhancement or for its reduction. 6. As observed supra, so far as income of deceased is concerned, it is not under challenge. He was a doctor and had a good earning as determined by Tribunal rightly. If thus, uphold the finding of earning in favour of claimants being not under challenge. 7. In my view, the application of Schedule for determining the compensation is one (sic) of the sole method usually applied by Tribunal and Courts, and hence if applied, then it cannot be said that it is bad in law. In this case I prefer to apply the same as against the unit system applied by Tribunal. It being a welfare legislation meant for extending the benefit to victim, the same must be applied to those, who are sufferer of calamity occurred in their family. 8. The only area where I am inclined to interfere in this case in favour of appellants is the applicability of multiplier. It is not in dispute that age of deceased was 40 years on the date of accident whereas Tribunal applied multiplier of 12. In my view, looking to the age of deceased, his family i.e. widow and 4 young minor children (2 daughters and 2 sons) and lastly keeping in view the schedule appended to Act, the multiplier of 16 appears to be just and proper. In this view of the matter, the claimants would be entitled to claim a total sum of Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000 x 16 = 11,52,000/-. In addition the claimants are entitled to claim total sum of Rs. 15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, thereby making a total of Rs. 11,52,000 + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 11,67,000/-. In other words, the claimants are held entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs. 11,67,000/- from the respondent. 9. 72,000 x 16 = 11,52,000/-. In addition the claimants are entitled to claim total sum of Rs. 15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads, thereby making a total of Rs. 11,52,000 + Rs. 15,000/- = Rs. 11,67,000/-. In other words, the claimants are held entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs. 11,67,000/- from the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent however vehemently contended that any increase in the compensation by this Court in this appeal would be a bonanza to claimants and hence it should not be done. I do not agree to this submission because on the facts found proved if the claimants are held entitled to get reasonable and lawful compensation, then in such event, it should be granted to them. It does not in my view call a "bonanza" to claimants but a just compensation awarded to them. 10. 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 o her findings are upheld being not under challenge. 11. Counsel fees Rs. 1,500/-, if certified.Appeal allowed. *******