JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these appeals involve common questions of law and facts 1 and arise out of common judgment, they are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 23.4.93 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (for short s "the Tribunal' hereinafter) in Motor Accident Case No. 356/89 whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- in favour of respondent claimants Smt. Sovani and others (for short 'the claimants' hereinafter) and against the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation' hereinafter) and the Oriental Insurance Company limited (for short 'the Insurance Company' hereinafter). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment and award impugned as well as record of he Tribunal. 4. Briefly stated facts of the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these two appeals are that on 3.4.89 at about 5.00 PM bus No. RNP 645 owned by the Corporation was plying from Udaipur to Chhoti Sadari, which was driven by its driver respondent Dinesh Chandra. When the said bus reached near Dabok, another bus came from opposite direction bearing number RSY 9026. Due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by Dinesh Chandra, there was head of collision between the two buses. Occupants of the buses sustained various injuries and one Lala Gameti succumbed to the injuries. In all six claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal for compensation by the legal representatives of the deceased and injured persons. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award held the drivers of the buses negligent for the said accident and awarded compensation against the Corporation and owner and insurer of bus No. RSY 9026. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned, the insurer of bus No. RSY 9026 and the owner of bus No. RNP 645, the Corporation have preferred these two separate appeals. 6. The issue of negligence was common in all the six claim petitions, namely, M.A.C. Cases No. 356/89, 122/90, 364/89, 423/89 and 424/89. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in all other five cases became final. In other five cases, the finding on issue of negligence has not been challenged by either parties. 6. The issue of negligence was common in all the six claim petitions, namely, M.A.C. Cases No. 356/89, 122/90, 364/89, 423/89 and 424/89. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in all other five cases became final. In other five cases, the finding on issue of negligence has not been challenged by either parties. In Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 1202 , the effect of non-filing of an appeal in the connected suit tried together with common issues came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme court and the Apex Court held as under : "Where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. The question is what happens where no appeal is field, as In this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect of non filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follows when a judgment or decree in a connected suit Is not appealed from." It was further held by their Lordship as under : "Thus the finality of finding recorded in the connected suit, due to non filing appeal, precluded the Court from proceeding with appeal in other suit." 7. In this view of the matter, since the finding on the issue of negligence has touched finality as having not been challenged in other cases, it is now not open to the Corporation or the Insurance Company to challenge the same. It is not open to the Insurance Company to challenge on the point of negligence and quantum of compensation. The statutory defences available to the insurer to contest a claim are confined to those provided In section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and if the insurer files an appeal the challenge should necessarily confine only to the grounds specified in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. Unless the conditions precedent specified in section 170 of the Act are satisfied an Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Unless the conditions precedent specified in section 170 of the Act are satisfied an Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi & Ors., JT 2002(7) SC 251 , has held as under : "The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, he is entitled to defend the action on grounds enumerated in the sub-section, namely, sub-section (2) of section 149 of 1988 Act, and no other ground is available to him. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other ground which is available to an insured or breach of any other conditions of the policy which do not find place in sub-section (2) of section 149 of 1988 Act. If an insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer than what the statute has specifically provided for." So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,35,000/- after deducting the amount for the contributory negligence of the deceased himself. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses produced by the claimants. A.W. 1 Smt. Sohani is wife of the deceased. A.W. 1 Smt. Sohani is wife of the deceased. She deposed that at the time of the accident, her husband was 32 years of age and the profession he was driver. His monthly income was Rs. 1500/-. A.W. 3 Roshan Lal, the employer of the deceased proved the income of the deceased to be Rs. 1500/- p.m. as the deceased was engaged as a driver by A.W. 3 Roshan Lal, the owner of the bus. A.W. 4 Tila Ram also proved the income of the deceased. A.W. 2 Bhera and A.W. 5 Logar are eye witnesses of the occurrence, who have proved the negligence of the driver of the Corporation bus respondent Dinesh Chandra. In the instant case, the Tribunal determined the monthly dependency Rs. 1,000/- and multiplied by 22. The Tribunal has failed to take into account the future prospects of the deceased. A.W. 2 Bhera and A.W. 5 Logar are eye witnesses of the occurrence, who have proved the negligence of the driver of the Corporation bus respondent Dinesh Chandra. In the instant case, the Tribunal determined the monthly dependency Rs. 1,000/- and multiplied by 22. The Tribunal has failed to take into account the future prospects of the deceased. He was a young person of 32 years of age and had as many as six dependants on him. i.e. a wife, three minor children and parents. It is settled law that while computing computation, future prospects of the deceased should be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand. If the future prospects is taken into account and the appropriate multiplier of 18 is applied, then the compensation would be much more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. It is settled law that in appeal quantum is interfered when the compensation awarded is either too low or too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, for the death of a young person of 32 years of age, the compensation of Rs. 2,35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, cannot be said to be too excessive. Hence, calls for no interference. 8. No other point was argued. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in both these appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed. No order as to costs.Both Appeals Dismissed. *******