the fact that there is a gap of approximately 02 years and 09 months between the said income tax returns and the date of accident. It can be seen that the income of the appellant, based on the income tax returns so produced on record is progressive, there is a possibility that he may have left his business and join service to improve his income. Thus, in our view, it would be reasonable to take the income of the appellant at ₹2,00,000/- per annum, i.e., ₹16,666.67 per month. 14.1 With respect to the multiplier, we do not find any error in the order passed by the High Court applying the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the appellant as 32 years on the date of the accident. 14.2 On the point of assessment of functional disability as 100% by the High Court as against 60% by the Tribunal, there is no challenge by the insurance company. 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account