( 1 ) THE short facts of the case appear to be that on 26. 12. 1992, when the appellant was going from Kalavad to Dhoraji by driving Truck No. GTH 7575, when he reached near the sign board of Fagash, the respondent No. 1 came driving rickshaw/chakda No. GTP 8876 from the opposite side in full speed and as per the appellant, since rickshaw-chakda was on the wrong side, it dashed with the Truck resulting into injuries to the appellant. The appellant filed claim petition No. 491 of 1993 before the Tribunal for recovery of the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest and the Tribunal after adjudication found that the appellant-claimant was 60% negligent as against the driver of the rickshaw/chakda to the extent of 40% and after assessing the income of Rs. 1,000/- p. m. with disability @ 15%, awarded the compensation of Rs. 15,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% p. a. to the appellant-claimant out of the total amount of Rs. 39,000/- and it is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are served, and respondent No. 4 is the Insurance Company of the truck who has appeared through Ms. Megha Jani, learned counsel. ( 3 ) THE first aspect which deserves consideration is the finding of the Tribunal for contributory negligence. The Tribunal has found the driver of the truck, appellant-claimant herein, as negligent to the extent of 60%, as against the negligence of the driver of the rickshaw/chakda of 40%. If the deposition of the claimant is considered with the panchnama of the site, it appears that as per the said panchnama, the truck was on extreme left below the road and on Kachha road, whereas, the rickshaw was on the other side of the road. The fact that the truck is found to be the extreme left beyond the road, shows that the truck was not only driven on the right side but the attempt was made on the part of the driver of the truck to divert the truck on the rough road/kachha road. Therefore, the aforesaid circumstances show that there is more negligence of the driver of rickshaw/chakda in comparison to the driver of the truck. ( 4 ) FURTHER, there are no marking of the break of either of the vehicles. Therefore, the aforesaid circumstances show that there is more negligence of the driver of rickshaw/chakda in comparison to the driver of the truck. ( 4 ) FURTHER, there are no marking of the break of either of the vehicles. However, it appears that after the accident, the rickshaw is driven upto 11 ft. and therefore, it can also be said that the rickshaw must have been driven with more speed and therefore, diverting of the rickshaw was not possible, which resulted into the accident. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid circumstances of no application of break by driver of either of the vehicles, but in view of the location of the vehicle after accident, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed error in contributing 60% of the negligence to the driver of the truck as against 40% to the driver of the rickshaw. It appears to the Court that considering the aforesaid circumstances and the reasons recorded, the negligence can be contributed to the driver of the rickshaw/chakda to the extent of 60% and to the driver of the truck to the extent of 40%. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant deserves to be accepted to that extent. ( 6 ) ON the aspects of disability @ 15%, there is no dispute, but it appears that the principal grievance raised on behalf of the appellant is of no proper assessment of the income by the Tribunal of the claimant and also no consideration of prospective income by the Tribunal. There was no authenticated record for the income of the claimant and the Tribunal has assessed the income at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Considering the circumstance that the accident had occurred in the year 1993, and there was no documentary evidence on record for the income, it appears that keeping in view the deposition of the claimant, Exh. 29, for receiving salary of Rs. 1,500/-, without production of any documentary proof for such purpose, it cannot be said that any error was committed by the Tribunal in assessing the income at Rs. 1,000/- per month of the claimant. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant for non-consideration of the prospective income deserves consideration. 29, for receiving salary of Rs. 1,500/-, without production of any documentary proof for such purpose, it cannot be said that any error was committed by the Tribunal in assessing the income at Rs. 1,000/- per month of the claimant. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant for non-consideration of the prospective income deserves consideration. If the principles as laid down by this Court for arriving at the figure of the prospective income, to calculate the mean for the purpose of awarding income are considered as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rita @ Vanitaben Wd/o Dipakbhai Hariram and Anr. reported at 1998 (2)GLH 670, are considered, the income to be assessed for the purpose of awarding compensation would come to Rs. 1,500/- per month after taking into consideration the prospective income of double the amount of Rs. 2,000/- and the division of the total by from the total of the existing income as well as prospective income (Rs. 1,000+rs. 2,000/2= Rs. 1,500 ). The learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the Tribunal has totally lost sight in non-consideration of the prospective income of the claimant and the Tribunal has committed error to that extent. Therefore, it appears that keeping in view the prospective income of the claimant, the Tribunal ought to have made the basis at Rs. 1,500/- p. m. for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation as against Rs. 1,000/ -. ( 8 ) IF the loss of income at Rs. 1,500/- p. m. is taken as basis for the purpose of awarding of the compensation, the amount of future loss of income would come to Rs. 40,500/- as against Rs. 27,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. ( 9 ) MR. Shaikh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also raised the contention that the Tribunal has awarded less amount towards pain and suffering and also for the actual loss of income since the appellant could not have worked during the period of treatment. ( 10 ) IN my view, in absence of any authenticated documentary record, the actual loss of income as assessed by the Tribunal for one month cannot be said as unjust or unreasonable since at the relevant point of time, the income found by the Tribunal was at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Further, the amount of Rs. ( 10 ) IN my view, in absence of any authenticated documentary record, the actual loss of income as assessed by the Tribunal for one month cannot be said as unjust or unreasonable since at the relevant point of time, the income found by the Tribunal was at Rs. 1,000/- per month. Further, the amount of Rs. 8,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, which cannot be said as unjust or unreasonable. Therefore, the said contention raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, if the total amount of compensation is counted, it would come to Rs. 40,500/-+ (plus)Rs. 12,000/- under the other heads (total Rs. 52,500), out of which, as observed earlier, if 40% contributory negligence is deducted, the remaining amount would come to 60% of Rs. 52,500/ -. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 31,500/ -. Therefore, ordered accordingly. ( 12 ) INTEREST as already awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation as was found proper by the Tribunal. Since, this Court has found that the proper amount of compensation would be Rs. 31,500/-, it appears that until the date of the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant would be entitled to the interest over the compensation @ 12% p. a. from the date of application until the date of Award passed by the Tribunal. However, for the period from the date of the Award of the Tribunal till the actual payment is made, it would be just and proper to award the interest @ 9% p. a. to the appellant-claimant. Hence, ordered accordingly. ( 13 ) APPEAL is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The appellant shall also be entitled to the proportionate additional cost to the extent of allowing of the appeal. Decree accordingly. R and P to be returned back to the Tribunal.