Judgment :- M.Y. Eqbal, Chief Judge. 1. This Appeal by the Appellant/ Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 28th September, 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai in M.C.O.P. No.867 of 1999, whereby a sum of Rs.14,23,840 has been awarded as compensation for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Claimant/First Respondent in a Motor Vehicle Accident. 2. The brief facts, which are relevant, are that on 29th October, 1996 at about 7.40 a.m. the Claimant was riding his Scooter bearing Reg. No.TC-Z-352 with his daughter sitting as a pillion rider. When the Claimant entered the junction of C.V. Raman Road and C.P. Ramasamy Road, a Maruthi Car bearing Reg. No.TN-01-J-1278, which was coming from north to south on C.P. Ramasamy Road and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter thereby causing grievous injuries to the Claimant/Petitioner. The Adyar Traffic Investigation Police registered a case in Crime No.4558/AMI/96. The present Appellant is the Insurer of the Maruthi Car, and the Second Respondent is the owner of the Car. 3. The Appellant-Insurer of the car contested the case on various grounds including that the Insurer of the Scooter should also be impleaded as a party. The Appellant contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Car. The owner of the Car also contested the claim on the ground that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings, formulated the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the accident had happened on 29.10.1996 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg. No.TN-01-J-278? (2) Whether the First Respondent’s vehicle – Maruthi car insured with the Second Respondent and the Respondents are liable to pay compensation? (3) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? (4) To what relief if any? 4. While deciding on point No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi car. (3) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? (4) To what relief if any? 4. While deciding on point No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruthi car. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal, while considering the evidence adduced on the side of the Claimant namely, P.W.1, the wife of the Claimant, P.W.2, the daughter of the Claimant and P.W.3, the Doctor, who has been examined to prove the disability, and also the earning of the Claimant, came to the finding that the Claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.14,23,840/-. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the compensation awarded is highly excessive and exorbitant. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant tendered voluntary retirement from service, and received a hand sum amount as monetary benefits, which is liable to be deducted from the pecuniary loss fixed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel, further, submitted that though the Claim Petition was filed on 29th June, 1998, the trial commenced only on 29th January, 2002. The delay was due to non-examination of witnesses by the Claimants. It was only on 1st December 2005, P.W.1 was examined and the Doctor, P.W.3 was examined on 4th September, 2007. There was, therefore, inordinate delay in the disposal of the Claim Petition, because of the negligence of the Claimant. Hence, according to the Appellant, the Claimant is not entitled to interest throughout. 6. It appears that because of the said accident, the Claimant sustained grievous head injuries, and he is not in a position to write or understand commands freely as a result of diffuse cerebral injury. The Doctor, who was examined as P.W.3, assessed 100% disability. P.W.1, the wife of the Claimant was examined as P.W.1, who deposed that the Claimant was working as Chief Manager in Canara Bank and was earning Rs.17,679/- per month. After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the Claimant at Rs.15,300. Since the Claimant was aged 53 years, the multiplier of 8 was taken and the compensation was assessed at Rs.14,23,800. 7. The Claimant/Respondent also preferred an Appeal against the impugned award being C.M.A. No.2610 of 2009 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as being highly on a lower side. 8. Since the Claimant was aged 53 years, the multiplier of 8 was taken and the compensation was assessed at Rs.14,23,800. 7. The Claimant/Respondent also preferred an Appeal against the impugned award being C.M.A. No.2610 of 2009 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as being highly on a lower side. 8. It was contended on behalf of the Claimant/Appellant that after the said accident, the Claimant was forced to retire from service. Learned Counsel submitted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner marked as Ex.C1, which is an unchallenged document, categorically proves that because of the accident the Claimant has become immobile and in fact became vegetable. It is contended that at the time of the accident, the Claimant was only 53 years of age and was a member of the Chartered Accountants of India. Because of the accident, he lost his future prospects, in as much as he would have definitely retired from the post of Chief manager. 9. We have considered the entire facts of the case and analysed the evidence brought on record. It appears that at the time of the admission of Appeal, the Appellant/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the award amount together with interest. In compliance of the said order, the Appellant/Insurance Company had deposited the amount of Rs.24,00,000/-, out of which, the Claimant was allowed to withdraw Rs.15 lakhs, and the balance amount of Rs.9 lakhs is still in deposit. We, therefore, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the Claimant, who has become totally invalid, the amount of the compensation awarded by the tribunal need not be disturbed. We also further hold that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs no further enhancement. Consequently, both the Appeals are dismissed. 10. The Claimant/Appellant is directed to withdraw the balance amount of Rs.9 lakhs together accrued thereon. No further interest is payable to the Claimant. No Costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.