JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 29.04.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal for death of one Shanker S/o Ram Karan has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,43,272/-. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the mother, brothers and sister of the deceased, inter alia, claiming that deceased Shanker was travelling in a Car and when the Car reached on the National Highway No. 79, the offending Truck being HR38-K- 3270 struck the said Car, resulting in grievous injuries to Shanker and his wife, to which, both of them succumbed. It was claimed that the deceased was Teacher in a Government School and was earning Rs. 20,000/- as Teacher and Rs. 5,000/- by agriculture operations. Based on the said averments the compensation was claimed. 3. After evidence was led by the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Truck. While ascertaining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the age of the deceased was 44 years, his monthly salary after taking into consideration the deduction for income tax was Rs. 20,313/-, the plea regarding agriculture income was not accepted and after adding 30% for future prospects and applying multiplier of 14 and deducting ½ towards personal expenses, awarded compensation of Rs. 22,18,272/- towards loss of income, Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 75,000/- to the two brothers and one sister towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Truck. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased for the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation, as the age of mother should have been taken the basis for assessing the amount of compensation and, therefore, the award impugned deserves to be set aside/reduced. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that in all three claim petitions were filed pertaining to the accident in question. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment impugned. It was submitted that in all three claim petitions were filed pertaining to the accident in question. The appellant Insurance Company has not challenged the other two awards and only appeal against the present award has been filed. Once the other two awards have not been challenged, the finding regarding the negligence of the driver of Truck would operate as res judicata. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., (2012) 11 SCC 738 the age of the deceased was rightly taken into consideration for arriving at the multiplier and, therefore, the award impugned does not call for any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. Besides the fact that on account of non challenge of finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence of the vehicle, the same would operate as res judicata against the appellant Insurance Company, the very fact that deceased was only occupant in the vehicle, the aspect of negligence by driver of the said vehicle, in which, the deceased was travelling, would even otherwise have no implication qua compensation to be awarded to the respondents. 8. In view thereof, there is no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 9. So far as the applicability of multiplier is concerned, the issue is settled in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Bhanu Shali (supra) and, therefore, the award impugned does not call for any interference. 10. The appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal of insurer dismissed.