JUDGMENT : K.S. JHAVERI, J. 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 02nd July 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Morbi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'), in Claim Case No.206 of 2006, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim case of the appellant herein. 2. It is the case of the appellant that on 15th June 2006, the appellant was preparing to despatch parcel of fish and lobster from Wankaner to Mumbai and he took one Chhakado Rickshaw bearing Registration No.GJ-3-Z- 4086 on rent and he went along with the goods in the capacity of owner of goods. At that time, driver of the said vehicle was driving his vehicle in full speed, rashly and negligently. As a result of the same, the driver of the rickshaw lost control over the vehicle and it got tumbled and the appellant received serious and grievous injuries and also sustained permanent partial disablement and his left hand was amputated below elbow and he was not able to perform any such work which was performed by him prior to the said accident. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid Claim Case, which ultimately came to be partly allowed. Hence, present appeal. 3. Mr.H.K. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the appellant at Rs. 3500/- per month and the prospective income of the appellant at Rs. 5250/- per month; that the Tribunal ought to have considered the permanent partial disability of the appellant; that the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs. 25,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering though the left hand of the appellant below elbow was amputated; that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the full amount under different heads as prayed for. In view of aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the appellant, contentions raised in the appeal and the documentary evidence available on record, it transpires that the Tribunal has, after appreciating the over all aspects of the matter, partly allowed the claim of the appellant. 4. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the appellant, contentions raised in the appeal and the documentary evidence available on record, it transpires that the Tribunal has, after appreciating the over all aspects of the matter, partly allowed the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal has in paragraph 13 of the judgment and award categorically observed that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence on record in respect of his income and, therefore, the Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence available on record has rightly considered the income of the appellant at Rs. 2100/- per month. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal has taking into consideration pros and cons of the matter and the evidence produced on record, awarded compensation to the appellant, which is just and reasonable. So far as the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the appellant are concerned, the facts of the present case are different from the decisions cited in the memo of the appeal. Hence, the same would not be helpful to the appellant. 5. In view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Over and above aforesaid reasons, I adopt the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and do not find any illegality much less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.