JUDGMENT : 1. This First Appeal From Order is by the National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging a judgment/award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Bijnor, dated 31.5.2018, passed in M.A.C.P. No.90 of 2017, whereby the claim petition has been allowed in part. The claim for compensation has been decreed to the extent of Rs.18,04,214/-, together with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has been directed to be deposited in some Nationalized Bank as fixed deposit for a period of 03 years. Aggrieved by this determination, the present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that claimant was coming from Amroha to his village Mahdood Nasho in his Swift Car No. DL08 CAD 4367 on 29.5.2016 together with his brothers when he was hit by speeding truck coming from other side at about 8.30 p.m. The head-on collision resulted in serious injuries being caused to the claimant and other fellow passengers on their face and other parts of the body. One person, namely Ashfaq Ahmad, who was travelling in the same car died, while others sustained serious injuries. A timely First Information Report was lodged in Case Crime No.286 of 2016, under Sections 279, 338, 337 and 427 IPC. A claim petition thereafter has been filed alleging that the claimant is 34 year old Contractor registered with CPWD, Delhi, and has suffered permanent partial disability in his lower limb. The claimant alleges his income to be Rs. 07 lacs per annum on the basis of Income Tax Return submitted by him. 3. After the accident, claimant was taken to Government Hospital Nurpur and was then referred to Government Hospital, Bijnor. The claimant appears to have been taken to a private hospital in Meerut, where he remained under treatment of one Dr. Rohit Garg. In the claim petition filed an amount of Rs.34,00,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum is claimed. The offending vehicle with which accident was caused in head-on collision was insured with the appellant, and therefore, in the claim petition the owner as also the Insurance Company were impleaded as defendants. The claim was contested by the appellant questioning all the averments pleaded by claimant in the plaint. The offending vehicle with which accident was caused in head-on collision was insured with the appellant, and therefore, in the claim petition the owner as also the Insurance Company were impleaded as defendants. The claim was contested by the appellant questioning all the averments pleaded by claimant in the plaint. According to the Insurance Company neither any accident was caused nor the insured vehicle (Truck No. HR 58 9006) was involved in the accident. 4. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, following five issues have been framed:- "1. Whether on dated 29.05.16 at about 08.30 P.M. at Nurpur-Moradabad Road near before the turn of Village-Askripur under the jurisdiction of Police Station-Nurpur, District Bijnor, the driver of Truck No. HR 85 9006 driven by him in rash and negligent manner hit the Swift Car No. DL 08 CAD 4367 which caused accident resulting into injuries to the claimant? 2. Whether on the date of the alleged accident the driver of Truck No. HR 58 9006 was having valid and effective driving license? 3. Whether on the date of the alleged accident Truck No. HR 58 9006 was insured with the respondent no.3 insurance company? 4. Whether on the date of the alleged accident Swift Car No. DL 08 ACD 4367 was insured with the respondent no.4 insurance company? 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation? If yes, then how much and from whom?" 5. In order to prove its claim, the claimant has examined PW-1 Shadab Ahmad and PW-2 Parvez Alam, who are stated to be eye-witnesses. The doctor has also been produced as PW-3. Apart from the aforesaid, documentary evidence in the form of F.I.R., C.D., Driving Licence and Insurance Policy etc. have been produced. The claimant has also filed treatment cards, medical bills, conveyance charges etc. to substantiate the injury caused to him. Medical bills and cash memos have also been produced as Paper nos. 46/1 to 46/154. On behalf of defendants, DW-1 Ram Gopal was adduced apart from other documentary evidence led on behalf of respondents. 6. The trial court on Issue no.1 has proceeded to hold that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck and principle of res ipsa loquitur has also been invoked. 46/1 to 46/154. On behalf of defendants, DW-1 Ram Gopal was adduced apart from other documentary evidence led on behalf of respondents. 6. The trial court on Issue no.1 has proceeded to hold that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck and principle of res ipsa loquitur has also been invoked. A finding has been returned that truck was driven in rash and negligent manner on account of which the accident occurred, resulting in severe injuries caused to the claimant, apart from the death of one of the passengers sitting in Car. The site plan prepared during the course of criminal investigation has also been relied upon for the purpose of returning a finding that rash and negligent driving was on part of the truck driver. On Issue no.2, a finding has been returned that the driver of vehicle in question was having valid and effective driving licence. On Issue no.3, the trial court has held that vehicle was ensured with respondent no.3 Company. A finding has been returned on Issue no.4 that Swift Car was also insured with Insurance Company. On Issue no.5, trial court has proceeded to hold that claimant is entitled to just and fair compensation on account of injuries sustained by him. The Income Tax Return for the Assessment Years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 together with bank account etc. have been placed before the Court. The Income Tax Return for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, which depicts income of the claimant at Rs.3,29,242/- and Rs.3,03,765/- have been relied upon for determining the annual income of claimant as Rs.3,00,000/-per year. The disability certificate, which is paper no.67 (Kha) has also been duly exhibited and proved. The doctor has also been examined in support thereof. According to disability certificate, the extent of permanent partial disability caused to the claimant has been determined at 20%. The cervical joint is said to be the effected on account of which claimant is said to have lost his ability to move, as he could do prior to the accident. 20% permanent disability in the earning capacity of the claimant has, therefore, been accepted by the Tribunal. By relying upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. 20% permanent disability in the earning capacity of the claimant has, therefore, been accepted by the Tribunal. By relying upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 77, multiplier of 16 has been applied to work out the permanent loss of earning capacity as Rs.9,60,000/-. A lump-sum amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering has also been awarded. The medical bills, which have been produced and established, have been accepted and a sum of Rs.8,29,214/- has been awarded. For special diet a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. The total compensation, therefore, has been awarded as Rs.18,04,214/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award on following two grounds:- "(i) That it being a case of head-on collision, the Tribunal ought to have accepted plea of contributory negligence and appropriate amount towards contributory negligence ought to have been deducted but its denial in the facts of the case renders the award bad in law. (ii) That finding relating to loss of earning capacity is not substantiated, inasmuch as the income of victim has increased in the next year, and therefore, no amount was payable towards loss of earning capacity." 8. So far as first argument advanced on behalf of appellant is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement of PW-1 Shadab Ahmad and PW-2 Parvez Alam, who are eye-witnesses and have narrated the manner in which accident itself was caused. The finding of rash and negligent driving on part of the speeding truck has been returned after taking note of the site plan prepared during the criminal investigation in the matter. Consistent evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on part of the truck driver. The only contra evidence adduced is of the truck driver. He has denied his involvement in accident itself. The factum of accident has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the plea of denial by the truck driver would not be a material evidence to support plea of contributory negligence. No other evidence of contributory negligence on part of the Car driver has been brought on record. He has denied his involvement in accident itself. The factum of accident has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the plea of denial by the truck driver would not be a material evidence to support plea of contributory negligence. No other evidence of contributory negligence on part of the Car driver has been brought on record. In such circumstances, the finding by the court below that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver is not shown to be perverse or erroneous, so as to warrant any interference with it. 9. The other argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant also does not appeal to the Court, inasmuch as the medical evidence of disability caused to the victim to the extent of 20% has been duly proved. The disability certificate is proved. The statement of doctor in support of such certificate has been clearly noticed. Large number of medical bills and other certificates have also been produced in that regard. Once it is found that permanent partial disability to the extent of 20% has been caused, and the loss of earning capacity in same proportion has been assessed based upon the income of the victim, with reference to the Income Tax Return for the previous years, no perversity or irregularity can be said to have been caused by the Tribunal in assessing the amount of loss of earning capacity. The fact that movement of claimant was restricted which would hamper his work as a Contractor is also not in issue. Merely because the income of Contractor is shown to have increased in the subsequent year would not mean that no compensation would be payable in that regard. Having suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of twenty percent, the earning capacity of claimant would have to be treated in law to have suffered, inasmuch but for the disability the Contractor may have fared better. Possibility of showing higher income with an intent to seek higher compensation also cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal has rightly disbelieved such higher income disclosed for the purposes of determining the income of claimant. The claimant admittedly is a Contractor and would be required to travel extensively in connection with his work. Possibility of showing higher income with an intent to seek higher compensation also cannot be ruled out. The Tribunal has rightly disbelieved such higher income disclosed for the purposes of determining the income of claimant. The claimant admittedly is a Contractor and would be required to travel extensively in connection with his work. He has suffered partial permanent disability in his lower limb, which is bound to restrict his movements and thereby his ability to work effectively as a Contractor. Loss in earning capacity would be obvious in such circumstances. The Apex Court has examined the issue in Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande and another; (2017) 3 SCC 351. The observations contained in paras 14 to 16 of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter:- "14. The crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, thus, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured. In this sense, MACT approached the issue in the right direction by taking into consideration the aforesaid test. However, we feel that the conclusion of MACT, on the application of the aforesaid test, is erroneous. A very myopic view is taken by MACT in taking the view that 70% permanent disability suffered by the appellant would not impact the earning capacity of the appellant. MACT thought that since the appellant is a Chartered Accountant, he is supposed to do sitting work and, therefore, his working capacity is not impaired. Such a conclusion was justified if the appellant was in the employment where job requirement could be to do sitting/table work and receive monthly salary for the said work. An important feature and aspect which is ignored by MACT is that the appellant is a professional Chartered Accountant. To do this work efficiently and in order to augment his income, a Chartered Accountant is supposed to move around as well. If a Chartered Accountant is doing taxation work, he has to appear before the assessing authorities and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act, as a Chartered Accountant is allowed to practice up to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Many times Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well. Many times Chartered Accountants are supposed to visit their clients as well. In case a Chartered Accountant is primarily doing audit work, he is not only required to visit his clients but various authorities as well. There are many statutory functions under various statutes which the Chartered Accountants perform. Free movement is involved for performance of such functions. A person who is engaged and cannot freely move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled. Movements of the appellant have been restricted to a large extent and that too at a young age. Though the High Court recognised this, it did not go forward to apply the principle of multiplier. We are of the opinion that in a case like this and having regard to the injuries suffered by the appellant, there is a definite loss of earning capacity and it calls for grant of compensation with the adoption of multiplier method, as held by this Court in Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 168 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285] : “9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. 10. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases— and that is now recognised mode as to the proper measure of compensation—is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” [Ed.: As observed in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 , pp. 256-57, paras 9-10.] 15. In Arvind Kumar Mishra case [Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258], after following the judgment in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335], the Court chose to apply multiplier of 18 keeping in view the age of the victim, who was 25 years at the time of the accident. 16. In the instant case, MACT had quantified the income of the appellant at Rs.10,000 i.e. Rs.1,20,000 per annum. Going by the age of the appellant at the time of the accident, multiplier of 17 would be admissible. Keeping in view that the permanent disability is 70%, the compensation under this head would be worked out at Rs. 14,28,000. MACT had awarded compensation of Rs.70,000 for permanent disability, which stands enhanced to Rs.14,28,000. For mental and physical agony and frustration and disappointment towards life, MACT has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000, which we enhance to Rs. 1,30,000. In this manner, the compensation that is payable to the appellant is worked out as under: Head Awarded by MACT Amount (in Rs.) Now payable amount (in Rs.) Medical & transport expenses 3,10,227 3,10,227 Loss of income 1,00,000 1,00,000 Mental and physical agony 30,000 1,30,000 Removal of rod inserted in right leg 25,000 25,000 Permanent disability to some extent 70,000 14,28,000 Total 5,35,227 19,93,227 The appellant shall also be entitled to the interest, as awarded by the High Court, as well as costs of this appeal. The amount shall be paid to the appellant within two months after deducting the payments already made." 10. The amount shall be paid to the appellant within two months after deducting the payments already made." 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that Tribunal has not erred in awarding compensation by applying multiplier of 16 for assessing the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20%. 11. No other ground is pressed. 12. This First Appeal From Order, therefore, is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC.