Judgment Heard Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 30.05.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, in Claim Petition No.14/1999. The Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed the Claim Petition on the ground that the deceased Antonio was proceeding from Pilar by his Scooter bearing No.GA-01-G-3913 and when he reached Goa Velha, a maruti van bearing No.KA-03/P-3694, came from behind at a fast speed and dashed against the scooter and, as a result of the said accident, the scooter was dragged and the rider sustained injuries and expired on the said date. Accordingly, the Claim Petition came to be filed against the Appellant and the remaining Respondents claiming that the deceased had a fishing trawler and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-per month and that he was maintaining the family. The deceased was 64 years old at the relevant time and, consequently, the Claim Petition was filed claiming, inter alia, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation from the Appellant and the Respondent Nos.3 to 5. 3. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues and recording of evidence, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.05.2006, partly allowed the Claim Petition and directed the payment of a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 5. Shri E. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has assailed the impugned Judgment essentially on the ground that the Respondents have failed to establish the actual income of the deceased and, as such, the question of the Tribunal fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/-is without any material on record. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the income returns produced by the claimants have been rightly rejected by the Tribunal and, as such, considering that there was no material on record to establish the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income at Rs.3,000/-per month. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment as well as the material on record and pointed out that there is nothing produced by the claimants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record to establish the income of the deceased. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment as well as the material on record and pointed out that there is nothing produced by the claimants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record to establish the income of the deceased. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as per the evidence on record, the accident has occurred also on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased and that the said aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal, in the impugned Judgment and Award which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Shri Godinho, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, has supported the impugned Judgment. 7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the material on record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal : POINTS FOR DETERMINATION (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified to fix the compensation to the claimants on the basis that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,500/-? 8. On perusal of the material on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that taking note of the fact that the income tax returns have been produced for the assessment year only when the accident has taken place, no reliance can be placed on such return to determine the actual income of the deceased. Considering the income derived from such fishing trawler, which is otherwise not disputed, the Tribunal has fixed the compensation on the basis that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,500/-. Considering the status of the deceased, I find that the monthly income of the deceased of Rs.3,500/-fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. The evidence on record further suggests that there was no dispute raised by the Appellants that the deceased was owning a trawler. It is not a case where the claim that the deceased had such activity, is fictitious. As such, as the deceased had some business activity, the contention of Shri Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, that the monthly income is to be fixed at Rs.3000/-, cannot be accepted. 9. With regard to the next contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, I find that records do not reveal any support on such contention. 9. With regard to the next contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, I find that records do not reveal any support on such contention. In any event, on perusal of the record and taking note of the fact that the vehicle was coming from the rear side of the deceased, I find that there is no justification for the learned Counsel to submit that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased nor has any evidence to that effect been brought up by the Appellants. As such, I find that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. As such, I find that no case is made out for any interference in the impugned Judgment and Award. There is no merit in the above Appeal and, as such, the Appeal stands dismissed with costs.