M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellants/Respondents 3 and 7 has projected this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the Award dated 25.09.2003 in M.C.O.P.No.93/1993 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Sub Court, Dharmapuri.

2. The Claims Tribunal viz., the Sub Court, Dharmapuri had passed an Award in the Claim Petition filed by the First Respondent/Claimant directing the Respondents 2, 3/Respondents 1, 2 and the First Appellant/Third Respondent to pay 50% of the Award amount of Rs.19,97,385/-and also the Respondents 4, 5 and the Second Appellant/Insurance Company to pay the balance of 50% of the Award amount of Rs.19,97,385/- jointly and severally together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realisation without costs and dismissed the claim against the Sixth Respondent, etc.,

3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the First Respondent/Claimant, witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P26 were marked. On the side of the Respondents, noone was examined and no documents were marked.

4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal viz., the Sub Court, Dharmapuri, the Appellants/Respondents 3 and 7 have projected this appeal before this Court.

5. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellants/Respondents 3 and 7, the Award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and indeed, the Tribunal had committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the caption of Pain and Suffering, Rs.15,60,000/- under the Head, Permanent Disability and Loss of Earning Power which were not borne out by evidence on record.

6. It is the further contention of the Appellants that in the absence of any proof in regard to the income of the First Respondent/Claimant, the tribunal had erroneously assumed imaginary figures or applied the multiplier as if there was a permanent loss of income. Also, the Disability being only 20%, the Tribunal was not correct in adopting the multiplier method for determining the compensation.

7. Continuing further, it is the plea of the Appellants that Ex.P23 Doctor Certificate dated 22.01.2003 issued in favour of the First Respondent/Claimant showed that the fracture had united well, within the acceptance of Permanent Disability at 20% by the Tribunal was an incorrect one.

8. Moreover, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum from 1993 was an erroneous one based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Lastly, on behalf of the Appellants, it is contended that in any event the Award of Rs.19,97,385/-granted by the Tribunal as compensation under different heads without acceptable oral and documentary evidence was liable to be interfered with by this Court sitting in Appeal and resultantly, the Appellants/Respondents 3 and 7 prayed for allowing the appeal in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.

9. The Tribunal on an appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 First Information Report came to the resultant conclusion that the Driver of the Third Respondent/Second Respondent viz., the Second Respondent/First Respondent and the Fifth Respondents Car Driver viz., the Fourth Respondent were responsible for happening of the occurrence on 21.09.1992 because of their fast speed, negligence and rash driving of the vehicles and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard and since the happening of the occurrence and the finding arrived at by the Tribunal was not disputed or challenged by the Appellants/Respondents 3 and 7, we are not going into the manner of occurrence in an elaborate manner.

10. In regard to the quantum compensation to be awarded, it is to be pointed out that the First Respondent/Claimant in the Claim Petition had claimed a total compensation of Rs.26,75,500/-, but restricted the claim to Rs.25,00,000/-only. The restricted claim of Rs.25,00,000/- in break up fig