Judgment D.A. Mehta, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 12th June, 1996 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 521 of 1995. 2. The vehicular accident took place on 20th October, 1995 at about 8.30 a.m., when one Shri Rajubhai Gangarambhai suffered fatal injury on being hit by Truck No. MH-20-A-5827. 3 The appellant – Insurance Company is No t seriously contesting the occurrence of the accident or fastening of the negligence and consequential liability. On behalf of the appellant – Insurance Company, it was submitted that the deceased was aged 18 years and is stated to be working as a cook In one Murlidhar Hotel earning Rs. 2,200/- per month. That the Tribunal has adopted the said figure as stated by the claimants without there being any evidence in this regard. It was submitted that as a consequence the loss of prospective income has been wrongly adopted at an estimated figure of Rs. 4,000/- per month resulting in computation of excess datum at Rs. 2,12,000/-. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously directed payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum and the said rate was excessive. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum and Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, 2001 ACJ 428, to submit that the rate of interest is required to be suitably modified. 5. Though served none appears on behalf of the respondents. 6. On going through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the Court does not find this to be a fit case to intervene in so far as the head of income is concerned. The Tribunal has considered the affidavit of the employer of the deceased which was tendered on behalf of the claimants to establish the income of the deceased. The factum of this affidavit, Ex.31 is not in dispute. In the circumstances, in so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, no interference is warranted in the figure adopted by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,200/- per month. 7. In so far as the prospective income is concerned, it is true that the Tribunal has adopted figure of Rs. 4,000/- per month. 2,200/- per month. 7. In so far as the prospective income is concerned, it is true that the Tribunal has adopted figure of Rs. 4,000/- per month. However, even if the formula of progressive rise in income and averaging is adopted, the difference between the two figures is not substantial so as to warrant interference. More so when one considers the fact that the deceased was aged 18 years and has left behind claimants including mother and four minor siblings. Hence, in so far as the awarded amount is concerned, no interference is called or. 8. The Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs. 2,12,000 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Admittedly, in 1996, the rate of interest adopted at the rate of 15% would be on the higher side and is required to be suitably scaled down. Accordingly, bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Supra) the rate of interest is reduced to 9% per annum on the same terms and conditions. 9. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs.