JUDGMENT 1. These two cases are injury cases. 2. These two appeals arise out of the same accident involving the same offending vehicle, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 3. Accident in these cases happened on 14.12.2005. 4. Claimant-injured, Rakesh Kumar, aged 32 years old working as Naik and claimant-injured- Raj Kumar, aged 24 years old, running a Rehri, were traveling on a Scooter from Bishnah towards village Laswara, near Deoli Tibba. The Scooter was hit by a Bus bearing registration No. JK02A-3625, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. In that accident, both the claimants suffered grievous injuries. They were shifted to Government Medical College, Jammu for treatment and thereafter discharged. Disability of claimant-Rakesh Kumar was assessed at 24% and the disability of claimant-Raj Kumar was assessed at 28%. 5. Two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award primarily contending that the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is excessive. 7. In the case of Rakesh Kumar, the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs. 6000/- P. M and taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the loss of income in future, applied multiplier, 14 and awarded compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. under the different heads as follows-- 1. For loss of future incomeRs. 2,59,400/ 2. For medical expenses.Rs. 10,000/- 3. For pain and sufferings.Rs. 48,000/- 4. For loss of amenities of life.Rs. 48,000 TotalRs. 3,65,200/- 8. In case of Raj Kumar, the Tribunal by adopting the multiplier of 15, awarded the compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. under the different heads as follows-- 1. For loss of future incomeRs. 2,52,000/ 2. For medical expenses.Rs. 10,000/- 3. For pain and sufferings.Rs. 60,000/- 4. For loss of amenities of life.Rs. 56,000 TotalRs. 3,74,000/- 9. In the appeals, it is pleaded that the percentage of disability is on higher side and therefore, compensation awarded is excessive. It is further pleaded by the appellant that no interest should have been granted for future loss of income in both the cases. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents pleaded for confirming the award and also states that keeping in view the serious nature of injuries, the multiplier should be on higher side. 11. It is further pleaded by the appellant that no interest should have been granted for future loss of income in both the cases. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents pleaded for confirming the award and also states that keeping in view the serious nature of injuries, the multiplier should be on higher side. 11. In the two claims, no amount has been granted towards the loss of income during the period of treatment and for extra nutrition. The excess if any can be adjusted on the two heads. Hence there is no need to reduce the quantum. The quantum is confirmed. 12. However, the sum of Rs. 2,59,200/- for future loss of income in case of Rakesh Kumar and the sum of Rs. 2,52,000/- granted for future income in case of Raj Kumar will not be entitled to interest of 7.5%. The other amounts will bear the interest. 13. The Appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above.