JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 31.01.2008 passed in MACP No.70 of 2004. 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. - appellant herein by way of preferring the present Appeal inter-alia contended that the charge-sheet came to be filed against the claimant himself and he was solely responsible for the commission of accident and he himself had dashed with the stationary tractor. Consequently, therefore, sole liability could have been fastened upon the claimant himself and no liability at all could have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. Insurance Company also contended that learned Tribunal wrongfully accepted the income of deceased to the Rs.20,000/- by believing him to be self-employed in gold shop work and therefore, wrongly based entire calculation for awarding future loss of compensation as such. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- On 30.10.2003 Rajeshkumar with his son viz. Raj took his Hero-Honda motorcycle and came to Nadiad. In the evening around 7:30 P.M. while he was passing the road Anand – Tarapur, in village Piplav northern side, one Tata-sumo came with full light because of which his eyes dazzled and his motorcycle took turn on the side road, where one tractor no. GJ7 E.4748 was parked on the road without parking signal. His motorcycle dashed with tractor and he fell down and sustained serious injuries. 4. This Court has heard Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the defendant no.1. 5. On the point of negligence, learned advocate Mr. Thomas for the appellant reiterated the ground urged to fix sole liability of claimant and no liability could have been fastened upon the Insurance Company. Whereas learned advocate Mr. Paresh Darji argued that tractor was in a stationary condition which was not having any reflector or head-light and incident occurred in the evening and as is disclosed from the record one another Tata-sumo vehicle was come keeping light on due to which the eyes of claimant dazzled and could not view the tractor and entire incident occurred. In that way of the matter, findings recorded by the learned tribunal required no interference. 6. In that way of the matter, findings recorded by the learned tribunal required no interference. 6. Taking into account rival submissions as well as reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in the light of the FIR and panchnama and other attendance evidence available on record, it is clearly emerging out from the record and proceedings that incident occurred at about 7 to 7:25 P.M. during the evening hours on 30.10.2003. The claimant was proceeding upon his motor cycle at that time upon the road leading to Tarapur to Piplav road. While he was passing within vicinity of village Piplav, at that time one another matador which was coming from the opposite side came keeping its light on due to which eyes of the claimant dazzled and he could not see the stationary tractor bearing no. GJ.07 E.4749 due to which he dashed with the tractor which was parked on tar road from behind, due to which incident occurred. Panchnama clearly indicates that upon tar road of scene of occurrence, blood-stains were found while drawing the panchnama of the place of incident. There was 7 feet tar road open on the northern side and the road having total width of 22 feet. In that view of the matter indisputably, the tractor was on the tar road and due to dazzle in the eyes of the claimant, he could not locate the stationary tractor and incident occurred. This is a clear case of hitting from the behind. Moreover, as noted above, the claimant was proceeding upon his motor cycle at which time one another vehicle which was coming from the opposite side keeping lights on in the evening hours due to which his eyes got dazzled and he could not see the stationary tractor lying on the road. Consequently, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly attributed contributory negligence equally upon the driver of the both the vehicles. Findings recorded by the learned Tribunal is based upon the evidence available on record. Records also indicate that the appellant Insurance Company had not led the evidence by way of producing the driver of the tractor who parked his tractor on the tar road as such. Therefore, contentions as regard to fastened in the sole liability upon the claimant is not acceptable. 7. Records also indicate that the appellant Insurance Company had not led the evidence by way of producing the driver of the tractor who parked his tractor on the tar road as such. Therefore, contentions as regard to fastened in the sole liability upon the claimant is not acceptable. 7. On the point of quantum, on going through the record and proceedings, the claimant has pleaded that he was having his own shop of gold ornaments and his earning was money of Rs.7000/- per month. However, during the course of trial, claimant has produced and proved the Income Tax Assessment Order wherein his income came to be established at Rs.20000/- per month. So far as findings recorded by the learned Tribunal having income of Rs.20000/- on the part of the claimant is based upon the evidence on record. However, Mr. Thomas contends that claimant sustained disability to the extent of 10% which may not result into the loss of income permanently and learned Tribunal could not have calculated the compensation by way of adopting the 15 multiplier. On going through the records and proceedings, this Court finds documentary evidence indicating prolonged treatment as a result of head injury sustained by the claimant with multiple depressed fractures of Lt.Frontal bone and subdural hematoma as certified by Dr. V.R. Shukla at Exh.36. Records and proceedings also indicate that Insurance Company had consented to count disability to the extent of 10% body as a whole as the doctor certified his disability to the extent of 25% of his upper limbs. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario coupled with the prolonged medical treatment and having sustained depress fracture over frontal portion disability by the claimant which would permanently remain and he would suffer it permanently as certified by the treating doctor, no interference is required. In that view of the matter the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Thomas is not at all acceptable and due to injury received by the claimant and resultant disability that shall continuously remain and would definitely reduce the bodily integrity forever compensation calculated by way of adopting 15 years multiplier in accordance with the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla varma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 . 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 10. & Anr. reported in 2009 6 SCC 121 . 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 10. Registry is directed to return the R & P to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal dismissed.