JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, appellant-National Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Mandi, in Claim Petition No. 65 of 2008, dated 31.08.2010, vide which learned Tribunal had passed the following award in favour of the claimants:- “In view of the findings on issues above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,39,100/- (Rs. Five lacs thirty nine thousand and one hundred only) by way of compensation from all the respondents with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. Respondent No. 3 being insurer is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from today. No costs. Memo of costs be prepared and file after due completion be consigned to Record room.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of present appeal are that respondent-claimant, Om Prakash, filed a petition for award of compensation on account of injury suffered by him in a vehicular accident. According to the claimant on 10.10.2016, he was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP33A- 6199. Amar Singh was the pillion rider. At around 6:20 p.m. when he reached Chakkar, the motorcycle was hit from behind by a tipper bearing registration No. HP58-1710, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, namely, Leela Parkash. As a result of the said accident, the claimant as well as pillion rider fell down. Both of them sustained injuries and were brought to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. Claimant remained admitted in Zonal Hospital, Mandi from 10.10.2016 to 13.10.2016 and thereafter he remained under treatment in various hospitals where he spent more than Rs. 3.00 lacs on his treatment. As per the claimant he was engaged in the activity of farming and his annual income was around Rs. 1.00 lac. He was also a Class-D Contractor and in said capacity he was earning an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month. According to the claimant as a result of the accident he had sustained 50% disability. Compensation claimed by the claimant was to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lac. This claim petition stands allowed by the learned Tribunal in terms already mentioned herein above. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the pillion rider Sh. Chaman Lal died in the accident. 4. Compensation claimed by the claimant was to the tune of Rs. 15.00 lac. This claim petition stands allowed by the learned Tribunal in terms already mentioned herein above. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the pillion rider Sh. Chaman Lal died in the accident. 4. Through this appeal, the impugned award has been challenged by the insurance company, inter alia, on the ground that learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in issue. It is primarily on this ground that this appeal has been filed and arguments were addressed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent claimant has argued that present appeal by the insurance company is not maintainable, as claim petition filed by the legal representatives of deceased Chaman Lal, stood allowed by the learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal (2), Mandi (i.e. MACT Case No. 38 of 2007, titled as Duni Chand and others Vs. Sh. Gautam Nath and others), vide award dated 19.1.2012 and the same was never challenged by the insurance company. He has further argued that award passed in MACT No. 38 of 2007 was challenged by S/Sh. Gautam Nath and Leela Prakash before this Court by way of FAO No. 120 of 2012, however, it is matter of record that said award was not assailed by the present appellant, i.e. National Insurance Company Limited and in the appeal filed by the owner, the award was modified by this Court by directing the insurer (present appellant-Insurance Company) to satisfy the award. 6. During the course of arguments, this Court has been apprised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment passed by this Court in FAO No. 120 of 2012, dated 16.12.2016 has attained finality and the same was not challenged by the present Insurance Company by way of appeal. 7. 6. During the course of arguments, this Court has been apprised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment passed by this Court in FAO No. 120 of 2012, dated 16.12.2016 has attained finality and the same was not challenged by the present Insurance Company by way of appeal. 7. In this background, the moot issue, which has to be decided by this Court as to whether the same Insurance Company which has not assailed the award passed by MACT, Mandi arising out of the same accident can be permitted to maintain this appeal, especially when the other award not challenged by Insurance Company stands upheld by this Court in FAO No. 120 of 2012, which was filed by the owner of the vehicle with partial modification in the same to the effect that Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award. 8. In my view, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal cannot be allowed. Out of same accident two claim petitions were filed before the MACT. Vehicle involved in the accident is the same. Insured is the same and insurer is the same. In the claim petitions, separate awards stand announced by the learned Tribunal, holding claimants entitled for compensation. When one award arising out of the same accident was not challenged by the Insurance Company at all, either on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid license or otherwise, then the same Insurance Company cannot be permitted to assail the award passed by the learned Tribunal in the other claim petition by way of an appeal. Insurance Company is in fact estopped from challenging the award subject matter of this appeal because of its own act and conduct. 9. This Court has perused the record of FAO No. 120 of 2012. The award passed in MACT No. 38 of 2007 demonstrates that following issues were framed in the said claim petition:- “(1) Whether the deceased Chaman Lal died due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper No. HP-58-1710 by respondent Leela Prakash as alleged? OPP. (2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, is so to what amount and from whom? OPP. (3) Whether there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR. OPP. (2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, is so to what amount and from whom? OPP. (3) Whether there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR. (4) Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3 (5) Relief.” 10. The findings returned by learned Tribunal on said issues are quoted hereinbelow:- “For the reasons recorded hereinafter, while discussing the issues for determination, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:- Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: Yes. Issue No. 3: Yes. Issue No. 4: Yes. Relief: Petition is allowed as per operative part of the judgment.” 11. As already mentioned above, findings returned by the learned Tribunal on issues No. 3 & 4 have not been disturbed by this Court in FAO No. 120 of 2012, meaning thereby that the same stand upheld by this Court. As the award passed by learned Tribunal stands merged in judgment passed by this Court in the said FAO, in this view of the matter, when the present appellant has already accepted the judgment of this Court in FAO No. 120 of 2012, it is not in the interest of justice to permit the Insurance Company to challenge the award in the present appeal on the same ground, which stands settled in FAO No. 120 of 2012. 12. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, no interference is called with the award under challenge and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Cross Objection No. 356 of 2011 13. Having heard learned counsel for the cross objector and learned counsel for the non cross objector, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by learned Tribunal does not calls for any interference, as the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable. Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14, taking into consideration the fact that the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 45 years. It has further assessed the loss to his estate to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month by taking the income of the claimant to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and reducing from the same 1/3rd, which amount as per learned Tribunal would have had spent by the claimant upon himself. It has further assessed the loss to his estate to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month by taking the income of the claimant to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and reducing from the same 1/3rd, which amount as per learned Tribunal would have had spent by the claimant upon himself. On these bases, learned Tribunal assessed that loss of earning comes to Rs. 3,36,000/-. In addition, learned Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the money spent on medicines and procedures and an amount of Rs. 33,000/- on other bills etc., including wages received by the attendant. Learned Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs. 21,000/- for taxi bills etc. and Rs. 40,000/- on account of pain and suffering. In addition, it has also awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of 50% disability suffered by the claimant. Thus the amount as determined by learned Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference, as has been prayed by learned counsel for the cross objector. As this Court does not finds any merit in the cross objections, the same are accordingly dismissed.