JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants- legal heirs of the original claimant against the respondents-original opponents under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (‘The Act’, for short) against the judgment and award passed by learned M.A.C. Tribunal, Fast Track Court No. 3 at City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 712 of 2022 on 12/03/2007. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimant(s) and the opponent(s) as they stood in the original petition for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:- 2.1 That on 15/08/2002 at about 22.30 pm the original claimant, after closing his hair cutting shop, was going on his scooter bearing registration no. GJ-1-D-369 and at about 23.00 hrs, when the claimant was crossing Prince Corner Cross Road, situated at Ankur-Kameshwar Mahadev Mandir Road, the opponent No.1 came driving Kinetic Honda bearing registration No. GJ-1-AK-847, which was in the ownership of opponent No. 2 and insured with the opponent no. 3, from Prince Corner to Sanghavi Road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Kinetic Honda with the front left portion of the scooter of the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant fell down on the road and sustained a fracture on the left hand and injuries on both knees and both elbows. The offence was registered at Naranpura Police Station being I-C.R.No.415 of 2002. 2.2 As the claimant had sustained injuries injuries, he was admitted to V.S.Hospital as an indoor patient and was advised to take complete bed rest and due to the accident, the claimant had suffered great pain, shock and sufferings and also had spent huge amount on medical treatment, the claimant filed a claim petition claiming an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from all the opponents jointly and severally under all available heads. 3. The opponents were duly served with the summons but the opponent Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear before the learned Tribunal. The Opponent No. 3-Insurance Company appeared and filed a written statement at Exh: 17 denying all the contents of the claim petition and pleaded that the claimant was equally contributory negligent for the occurrence of the accident and hence the learned tribunal learned urged to dismiss the claim petition against them. 4. The Opponent No. 3-Insurance Company appeared and filed a written statement at Exh: 17 denying all the contents of the claim petition and pleaded that the claimant was equally contributory negligent for the occurrence of the accident and hence the learned tribunal learned urged to dismiss the claim petition against them. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded an amount of Rs.54,000/- towards future loss of income, Rs.9,000/- towards actual loss of income, Rs.10,000/- towards pain, shock and sufferings, Rs. 3,700/- towards medicines and medical treatment, Rs.1500/- towards transportation expenditure and Rs.1,500/- towards special diet, and in all awarded an amount of Rs. 79,700/- as compensation but deducted an amount of 15940/- towards 20% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and awarded an amount of Rs.63760/- (Rs.79,700-Rs.15940), rounded of to Rs.63800/- with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of claim petition till realization. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the claimant has filed the present first appeal, mainly, contending that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the income of the claimant and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of Rs.6000/- to which the prospective income must be added and due to the injuries, the claimant had to keep one person to carry on the business and he was paying Rs.2,500/- to that employee, which has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. 5.1 The learned Tribunal has also erred in deciding 20% contributory negligence of the claimant, and in-fact, the claimant was not able to work for six months and actual loss of income is not properly considered. Moreover, amounts of transportation and medical expenditure and special diet are also not properly appreciated, and hence, the claimant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel appearing for the appellant-original claimant and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai for the respondent No.3-Insurance company. Though served, the other respondents have not appeared. 7. Learned advocate Mr. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel appearing for the appellant-original claimant and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai for the respondent No.3-Insurance company. Though served, the other respondents have not appeared. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel appearing for the appellant- original claimant has reiterated the contents of the appeal memo and has submitted that even though there was evidence regarding the injury of claimant, the learned judge has not appreciated the same properly and the income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month, when in fact, the monthly income should be assessed at Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned advocate for the appellant has also offered the contributory negligence of 20% as assessed by the learned Tribunal and urged this Court to enhance the amount of the compensation accordingly. 8. Learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai appearing for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no inference is required in the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, and, hence, the appeal of the appellant must be rejected. 9. From the record and proceedings of Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 712 of 2002, it appears that the claimant has filed the affidavit of examination in Chief at Exh:33 reiterating all the contents of the claim petition and during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the opponent No.3-Insurance Company has admitted that the accident has occurred at night time and the headlights of both the vehicles were on. The claimant has categorically admitted that he has not produced any evidence of his income and has produced all bills of medical expenditure and has also not produced any evidence regarding his age. 9.1 The appellant has mainly challenged the income i.e. considered by the learned Tribunal but the claimant, in the cross examination, has admitted that he has not produced any documentary evidence regarding his income. The learned Tribunal has appreciated that the claimant has produced light bill, rent receipt and certificate issued under the registration of Shops and Establishments Act, 2019 at Exh: 47 and has thus established that he is doing the business of hair cutting but has not produced any evidence to prove his income. The learned Tribunal has appreciated that the claimant has produced light bill, rent receipt and certificate issued under the registration of Shops and Establishments Act, 2019 at Exh: 47 and has thus established that he is doing the business of hair cutting but has not produced any evidence to prove his income. Admittedly, the claimant was doing the business of hair cutting and must be maintaining accounts but the claimant has chosen not to produce any such document to prove his income. Considering the nature of business, the learned tribunal has held the income of the claimant to be Rs.3,000/- per month, which is just and proper in the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the claimant. 9.2 The learned advocate for the appellant has also challenged the disability as considered by the learned Tribunal but from the record and proceeding, the claimant has produced the policy at Exh:42, the disability certificate of Dr. Shantilal G. Patel at Exh: 32/7 wherein, the disabilities is assessed at 24.2% but, the claimant himself has given a pursis at Exh:42 urging the learned Tribunal to the disability at 10%. The learned Tribunal has, considering this pursis produced at Exh: 42 by the claimant himself, assessed the disabilities at 10% and considering the monthly income of Rs.3,000/-, assessed the monthly future loss of income at Rs.300/- per month and Rs.3600/- per annum. 9.3 The appellant has also urged this Court to consider that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, he could not do his work for six months and had to keep one employee and was paying the employee at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month but the claimant has not produced any evidence in this regard and hence the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated and not granted any such amount to the claimant in the absence of any evidence regarding such payment. 9.4 The appellant has also challenged the negligence of 20% assessed by the learned Tribunal and has stated that the opponent No.1 was sole negligent for the occurrence of the accident and the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the contributory negligence of the claimant at 20%. 9.4 The appellant has also challenged the negligence of 20% assessed by the learned Tribunal and has stated that the opponent No.1 was sole negligent for the occurrence of the accident and the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the contributory negligence of the claimant at 20%. The learned Tribunal has considered all the oral and documentary evidence and has observed that during the cross examination, the claimant has admitted that he had to go on the straight way and the driver of the Kinetic Honda i.e. opponent No. 1 had to cross the road. That the Kinetic Honda had dashed with the left portion of the Scooter and and the claimant has admitted that at the time of accident, the head lights of both the vehicles were on and the accident has taken place at a four cross roads. The claimant has also admitted that he had not seen the vehicle and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant ought to have taken proper care at the four cross roads and due diligence was required on the part of the claimant also, while driving at the four cross roads and the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the contributory negligence of the claimant at 20%. 10. In view of the above discussion, the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated all oral and documentary evidence and there is no error committed by the learned Tribunal in passing the judgment and award and the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.