JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment cum award dated 12.2.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Udaipur in Claim Case No. 1114/2010 whereby the claim application filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was accepted and they were awarded compensation of Rs. 6,62,000/- on account of death of their son Pankaj. 2. The appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court assailing the impugned judgment cum decree mainly on two grounds: (i) that the Tribunal was wrong in applying the multiplier in reference to the age of the deceased whilst assessing the compensation, and (ii) that the Tribunal wrongly applied the rise in income by future prospects while assessing the loss of income caused to the respondents. He thus prays that the appeal should be accepted on these two grounds. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment cum award. 4. The first issue raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is regarding the applicability of multiplier. There were divergent views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of the multiplier to be applied in cases involving death of a bachelor. Ultimately, a Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid the controversy to rest while deciding the case of Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65 and directed that the multiplier in all cases (irrespective of the age of the claimants) shall be applied in accordance with the table proposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 . The only exception made was in cases involving death of a bachelor below 15 years of age where, it was directed that the multiplier of 15 shall be applied. Thus, the challenge made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the award on the ground that the wrong multiplier was applied in reference to the age of the deceased rather than applying it in reference to the age of the claimants does not hold water. Thus, the challenge made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the award on the ground that the wrong multiplier was applied in reference to the age of the deceased rather than applying it in reference to the age of the claimants does not hold water. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal was absolutely justified in applying the multiplier of 17 in reference to the age of the deceased who was of 26 years on the date of the accident. 5. The next argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal committed a grave error in applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects whilst assessing the loss of income caused to the claimants. The said argument also does not convince this Court so as to interfere in the impugned award. The issue was examined in detail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savita v. Bindar Singh and Ors. reported in 2014(4) SCALE 128 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of rise in income by future prospects has to be applied in accident claims arising from the death of a 'self employed person. This also considered the same issue in the case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Girdhari Ram and Ors. (S.B.C.M.A. No. 1652/2013) and other connected appeals decided on 14.2.2014 wherein after considering the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 and others, it was held that rise in income by future prospects has to be applied even if the victim was a labourer. In the present case, the claimants have come out with the specific evidence that the deceased was working as a marketing salesman. Thus, simultaneously with the rise in the cost price index and the cost of living, the earnings of a marketing salesman are bound to increase. Thus, the claimants were rightly given the benefit of the rise in income by future prospects while calculating the damages. 6. Thus, the challenge made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the impugned judgment cum award on both the counts is not fit to be accepted.Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******