JUDGMENT S. G. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shelat for the appellant and Mr.Dave and Mr.Hakim, learned advocates for the concerned respondent/s. Perused the record as well as R & P. 2. The appellant herein is original opponent No.3 being insurer of offending vehicle in question whereas respondent No.1 is original injured claimant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are respectively driver, and owner of the vehicle insured by the appellant. 3. The appellant insurance company has challenged the award dated 9.10.2015 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.236 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narmada @ Rajpipla. By such judgment and award, the tribunal has directed the appellant insurance company to pay the amount of Rs. 15,25,000/- towards compensation to the respondent No.1 injured claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident. 4. It is undisputed fact that on 14.1.2018 when injured victim was driving his tempo No.GJ-23V-4271 towards Vadodara from Savli in the sim of village Gorda near Essar Petrol Pump, a Qualis motor car No.GJ-6BA-9702 has come forward from opposite direction and, there was head-on-collision between both the vehicles which resulted into serious injuries to the injured claimant. Therefore, claimants have preferred a claim for Rs. 13,00,000/- wherein tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,25,000/- after allowing both the sides to adduce the evidence, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that driver of the Qualis car alone was negligent for the incident and, thereby, no negligence was fixed on the part of the injured victim. However, considering the injures which were on head, ribs, kidneys, liver, thigh and several fracture including fracture of D-11, D-12 and L2 vertebrae which resulted into paralysis of both the legs, relying upon the other available evidence on record, the tribunal has awarded compensation on different heads as under: - Rs.8,10,000/- future earning capacity (considering Rs. 3,000/- as earning capacity, adding 50% prospective income, taking 100% disablement and applying 15 as suitable multiplier considering the age of the victim as 36 years.) Rs.4,00,000/- Medical expenses already incurred and that may be incurred in future. Rs.90,000/- Attendant charges. Rs.50,000/- Special Diet Rs.25,000/- Transportation charges Rs.50,000/- Loss of Amenities. Rs.1,00,000/- Pain, Shock & Suffering Rs.15,25,000/- TOTAL 5. 3,000/- as earning capacity, adding 50% prospective income, taking 100% disablement and applying 15 as suitable multiplier considering the age of the victim as 36 years.) Rs.4,00,000/- Medical expenses already incurred and that may be incurred in future. Rs.90,000/- Attendant charges. Rs.50,000/- Special Diet Rs.25,000/- Transportation charges Rs.50,000/- Loss of Amenities. Rs.1,00,000/- Pain, Shock & Suffering Rs.15,25,000/- TOTAL 5. Being aggrieved by such award, the appeal is preferred mainly on two grounds; (1) there was contributory negligence of the claimant to certain extent and (2) the amount of compensation is exaggerated at-least when tribunal has added 50% of monthly income as prospective income though victim is not salaried person and thereby though his income was uncertain and there was no proper proof of such income. 6. I have heard both the advocates at length and considered rival submissions. I have also gone through the Record & Proceedings and referred the complaint, panchnama and other documentary evidence available on record; so also evidence of the injured victim. 7. So far as issue regarding income of the claimant is concerned, the record categorically confirms that though it was head-on-collision between 2 vehicles, practically, the impact of offending vehicle with the vehicle of the injured claimant was on wrong side of such offending vehicle and, therefore, even if claimant was driving his vehicle, either near the center point of road or only at some distance from the center of the road and thereby not at extreme edge of his side, when offending vehicle came on wrong side even to some extent and dashed the vehicle of the claimant, I do not see any reason to interfere with in the reasoned order by the tribunal while deciding that driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent for the incident and, there was no contribution in negligence by the claimant. Therefore, to that extent, I do not find any substance in the appeal. 8. Therefore, to that extent, I do not find any substance in the appeal. 8. However, so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, there is clear evidence on record that except bear words, there is no specific documentary evidence to confirm the income of the injured victim and, therefore, there was guess work by the tribunal in considering the monthly income of the victim and in that case, in absence of specific evidence of income of a salaried person, as suggested by the full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the prospective income is to be considered as 40% and not at the rate of 50% as taken by the tribunal. Therefore, when such consideration is not as per approved settled principle by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such calculation is to be modified suitably so as to do the justice to all the parties. Though the difference in such calculation would be only Rs. 54,000/-, it is clear and obvious that the tribunal has also awarded lump-sum amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- both towards actual cost and future cost without making it clear that what is actual expenditure incurred by the petitioner for the treatment and, therefore, instead of entering into those minute details in absence of proper discussion and evidence on record and otherwise also when against the claim of Rs. 13,00,000/-, tribunal has though rightly awarded more amount of compensation, as per its own calculation, so far as there is material irregularity in consideration of prospective income, to make the balance between the dispute and to the justice to both the parties, let there be a modification in award so as to reduce the amount of compensation under the head of future loss of income from Rs. 8,10,000/- to Rs. 7,56,000/- considering Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income + 40% as prospective income and, thereby, Rs. 4,200/- as average earning capacity of the victim and applying 15 as suitable multiplier (Rs.4,200/- * 12 * 15). Therefore, without disturbing the compensation on other heads, let there be a modification as aforesaid. 9. It cannot be ignored that the tribunal has also awarded 9% interest on full set of compensation including future medical expenses and, therefore, atleast reduction of Rs. 54,000/- from award with proportionate interest would be just and reasonable. 10. Therefore, without disturbing the compensation on other heads, let there be a modification as aforesaid. 9. It cannot be ignored that the tribunal has also awarded 9% interest on full set of compensation including future medical expenses and, therefore, atleast reduction of Rs. 54,000/- from award with proportionate interest would be just and reasonable. 10. Present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms whereby impugned award is modified so as to confirm that claimant is entitled to Rs. 14,71,000/- towards compensation. Rest of the conditions of the award remain unchanged. Thereby, now, if insurance company have deposited the entire amount before the tribunal as per order in Civil Application, then, tribunal shall refund the amount of Rs. 54,000/- with proportionate interest on it in favour of the insurance company by encashing such amount invested in FDR as per award. 11. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court at the earliest.