V. G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the same judgment and award passed by M. A. C. T.-1v, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore, in MVC No. 1389 of 1992 dated 20. 6. 1998. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: the parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the M. A. C. T. , seeking compensation of rs. 10,00,000 towards injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 10. 5. 1992. It was alleged that while he was going on the left side of the road on his TVS moped on the Bangalore-Tumkur road near Hosanijagal, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-03-T-1126 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Petitioner suffered crush injuries to both the legs and later his left leg has been amputated above the knee. The petitioner was working as a driver. He claimed compensation from respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending lorry. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 filed objections statement before the Tribunal and the respondent No. 1 did not choose to contest the case before the Tribunal. Having regard to the pleading of the parties, the tribunal framed following three issues: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 10. 5. 1992, at about 9. 30 a. m. while he was standing with his TVS moped on the left side of the road near Hosanijagal on Bangalore-Tumkur NH4 Road, a lorry bearing No. AP-03-T-1126 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, and ran over the iegs of the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) Whatever or award? ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as PW 1 and also examined PW 2 on his behalf and got marked Exhs. P-l to P-20. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence has been led, however, the insurance policy has been marked as Exh. Rl. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20. 6. 1998 answered issue nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and held that petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. P-l to P-20. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence has been led, however, the insurance policy has been marked as Exh. Rl. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 20. 6. 1998 answered issue nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and held that petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 5,50,000 with interest at 10 per cent per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit the compensation amount. ( 5 ) THAT being aggrieved by the above said judgment and award of the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred M. F. A. No. 1578 of 1999 seeking the enhancement of compensation as claimed in the petition and being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the owner and insurer respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal have preferred M. F. A. No. 83 of 1999. Since these two appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, they are disposed of by this common order. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a lower side and having regard to the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate. He submitted that the income of the petitioner taken for the purpose of arriving at the loss of earning capacity is on a lower side and petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, appellants in m. F. A. No. 83 of 1999, submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner had suffered crush injuries to the left leg and left leg had to be amputated 6 inches above the knee and having regard to the age of the injured and his occupation, the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal cannot be said to be excessive. However, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the interest on the amount of Rs. However, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the interest on the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 which has been awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity and since this amount pertains to the loss of earning capacity in the future, the petitioner was not entitled to interest on the said amount. Having regard to the contention of the parties, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are: (1) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on a lower side? If so, whether the petitionerappellant in M. F. A. No. 1578 of 1999 is entitled to enhancement of compensation? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in awarding interest on the compensation awarded towards loss of future earnings? (3) Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for interference in these appeals? ( 8 ) WE answer the above points as follows: point No. 1: In the negative. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Point No. 2: In the affirmative. Point No. 3: In the negative for the following reasons: point No. 1: The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,50,000 to the petitioner under the following heads: ( 9 ) IN view of the above, we hold that the compensation awarded under the head loss of future earnings would also attract interest awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, we answer point No. 2 in the negative. ( 10 ) IN view of our findings on point nos. 1 and 2, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal does not call for interference in these appeals and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following orders are passed: m. F. A. No. 1578 of 1999 and M. F. A. No. 83 of 1999 are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed. --- *** --- .