JUDGMENT : S. KANNAMMAL, J. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred against the award dated 12.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.583 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Thiruvallur, Poonamallee. 2. Both the appeals arise out of the common award and same accident and hence they are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The claimant in C.M.A.No.3922 of 2019 filed a petition praying for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.28,47,360/- against which the claimant preferred C.M.A.No.3922 of 2019 for enhancement of the award amount and the National Insurance Company filed C.M.A.No.3999 of 2019 for scaling down the award amount. 4. Brief facts of the case in M.C.O.P.No.583 of 2014 are as follows:- On 04.03.2014, at about 19.30 hours the injured claimant was walking on Taramangalam to Omalur Road, in front of Perumal Koil bus stop from West to East and while crossing the Road, the first and second respondent's Mahindra & Mahindra Maxi pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-72-AD-6333 came in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant. In the accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries and amputation of right leg. Hence, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal first, second and fourth respondents were set ex-parte. The third respondent, i.e. the National Insurance Company resisted the claim of the claimant in the counter. The third respondent denied the manner of accident and alleged that as per the FIR the accident had taken place while the claimant was crossing the road by an unknown vehicle. The claimant is also guilty of contributory negligence. 6. Before the Tribunal on the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and 11 documents were marked via Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On the side of the third respondent one Thirumathi.Sudha, the Executive Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and five documents were marked via Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. 7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the claimant and third respondent held that the accident had happened due to the negligence of the driver of the Mahindra & Mahindra Maxi Van and the third respondent is liable to pay compensation. 8. 7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the claimant and third respondent held that the accident had happened due to the negligence of the driver of the Mahindra & Mahindra Maxi Van and the third respondent is liable to pay compensation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company in C.M.A.No.3999 of 2019 would contend that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very excessive and the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the notional income of the injured/claimant at Rs.9,000/- and adding 40% towards future prospects, in total Rs.12,000/- is very much on higher side and likewise the Tribunal also fixed the award at Rs.7,00,000/- in excessive towards loss of marital pleasure. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the injured claimant/appellant in C.M.A.No.3922 of 2019 would submit that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence on record in prospective and awarded a meagre award amount. He would point out that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the income of the appellant notionally at Rs.9,000/- per month while the injured/claimant produced Ex.P6 to establish the avocation of the injured claimant and also erroneously fixed the loss of earing capacity by fixing 80% of functional disability while the claimant sustained 100% functional disability. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant seeks enhancement of the award amount. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the appeals and perused the materials available on record. 11. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the claimant injured has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation on Rs.25,80,000/-, restricted to a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal considering both documentary and oral evidence, felt it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.28,47,360/-. The Tribunal in its detailed award has considered each and every aspect of the matter and awarded just compensation. On perusal of the award, it is clear that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards loss of income by fixing notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month though the claimant has not filed any documentary evidence, but only produced Ex.P6 to show that he is a member of the Barbers Association. On perusal of the award, it is clear that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards loss of income by fixing notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month though the claimant has not filed any documentary evidence, but only produced Ex.P6 to show that he is a member of the Barbers Association. Since the claimant/injured was 34 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal added 40% towards future prospects and thereby fixed the monthly income at Rs.12,600/- per month, which this Court does not find any irregularity in order to interfere with the same hence the same is confirmed by this Court. Likewise, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the permanent disability at 80% and also rightly awarded the compensation under various other heads. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded the compensation towards loss of marital pleasure at Rs.7,00,000/- is very excessive is concerned, this Court does not find any infirmity in order to reduce the same since the Tribunal while considering the age of the claimant at the time of accident being 35 years and by relying on various citations, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the said compensation. The multiplier fixed at 16' is also correct. Hence, this Court does not find any convincing reasons either to enhance the compensation or to reduce the same since the Tribunal, in a well considered manner touching upon each and every aspect of the matter and the contentions raised by both the parties, has passed the award. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 12. In the result, both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and sum of Rs.28,47,360/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent/claimant, along with interest and costs are hereby confirmed. The 1st appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the 1st respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amounts fixed by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount already withdrawn, if any, by making necessary applications before the Tribunal. No Costs.