Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J.;— The present appeal has been filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 23.12.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lakhimpur Kheri in Claim Petition No. 11 of 2005 (Kailash Prasad Rastogi vs. Vivek Kumar Bajpai and another). In short, according to the petitioner, the accident took place on 23.11.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Motor Cycle No. U.P.31-F-6365 resulting into grievous injuries to the injured. It is stated that he was taken to District Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri where he was admitted for a short duration and after his condition was serious, he was referred to K.G.M.C. Lucknow where he remain admitted since 24.11.2003 till 10.12.2003 and got his treatment. From perusal of the record, it appears that after accident he got further treatment in Neurological Surgical Clinic, Lucknow, Gomati Agar. Petitioner alleged that his income is Rs. 8000/- per month from the jewellery shop. Since he became disabled and his memory was partially lost so he could not do his business. A compensation of Rs. 10 lacs was claimed. Opposite parties no. 1 and 2 filed their written statement. Four issues were framed. After elaborate discussion, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 87,689/-. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the opposite parties. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the income has wrongly been assessed because the petitioner was not income tax payer and was not having licence to run the business of gold smith. It was also alleged that there is no paper of continuous treatment. It was also alleged that there is no material evidence on record to show and prove the income of the claimant. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the certificate of Gram Pradhan and photograph of shop has also been filed which proves that the petitioner was gold smith. It was also submitted that the income of Rs. 8000/- per month is neither excessive nor unreasonable. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any registration certificate of the shop in question issued by the competent authority. A certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan cannot be said to the conclusive piece of evidence regarding the ownership of the shop in question. Learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 8000/- per month is neither excessive nor unreasonable. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any registration certificate of the shop in question issued by the competent authority. A certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan cannot be said to the conclusive piece of evidence regarding the ownership of the shop in question. Learned Tribunal assessed Rs. 75,000/- as loss of income for a period of two and half years at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month. Record does not indicate that petitioner was continuously in treatment for two and half years. Though various bills have been filed but in the absence of any income tax paper or the registration certificate of the shop in question, assessed income made by the Tribunal does not inspire confidence. Admittedly, the petitioner had suffered injuries. He had spent considerable money on his treatment and definitely he must have suffered loss in his income also. Taking into consideration, the various facts, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be substantiated and therefore the compensation, determined for loss of income, can reasonably be reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and therefore finding in this respect is modified accordingly. Compensation awarded on other counts does not need any interference as it has been reasonably assessed and awarded. So the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 62,689/- and the award dated 23.12.2006 is modified accordingly. It may also be observed that rate of interest has been reasonably awarded so it does not require any interference. The appeal is partially modified and the total amount awarded Rs. 87,689 is reduced to Rs. 62,689/- with the rate of interest as awarded by Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2006. The appeal is disposed of. _____________