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 13.6.2001, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in Claim Case No. 91/99 9268/97) By impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1.02,600/- with interest to the claimants for the death of one Budha Singh 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 in 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 acts on all these issues. 3. It is death case. On 2.9.1997, Budha Singh, a Guard in Central Jail, Ajmer aged around 39 years, met with a vehicular accident and died. It is this 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 the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,02,600/- towards full payment of compensation for his death. It was held that his monthly salary was Rs. 1000/- and hence after deducting ⅓rd, his dependency was worked out to Rs. 700/-. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 45,000/- towards consortium. This is how a sum of Rs. 1,02,600/- was awarded. 1,02,600/- towards full payment of compensation for his death. It was held that his monthly salary was Rs. 1000/- and hence after deducting ⅓rd, his dependency was worked out to Rs. 700/-. The Tribunal then applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 45,000/- towards consortium. This is how a sum of Rs. 1,02,600/- was awarded. 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 the extent indicated infra. 5. In my view, the only area where I am inclined to interfere in this case in favour of appellants is his monthly income. It is not in dispute that age of deceased was 39 years on the date of accident and that his monthly salary was Rs. 3515/-. In my view, looking to the evidence available on record and the fact that here is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the non-applicants, the income of the deceased should have been determined at least to be Rs. 3000/- per month. It is held accordingly by modifying the finding of Tribunal. Deducting ⅓rd as personal expenditure, the dependency is worked out at Rs. 2000/-. So far as applicability of multiplier is concerned, looking to the deceased's age, 16 can be the just and proper. In this view of the matter, the claimants would now be entitled to claim a total sum of Rs. 2000 x 12 = Rs. 24,000 x 16 = Rs. 3,84,000/-. In addition, the claimants are already entitled to claim total sum of is 45,000/- by the Tribunal towards conventional heads such as loss of love and affection. estate and funeral expenses, thereby making a total of Rs. 3.84,000 + Rs. 45, 000 = 4,29,000/-. 6. In other words the claimants are now held entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs. 4,29,000/- from the respondents. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents 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. 45, 000 = 4,29,000/-. 6. In other words the claimants are now held entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs. 4,29,000/- from the respondents. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents 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. 8. 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. 1500/-, if certified.Appeal allowed. *******