JUDGMENT : 1. Since, both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 14.07.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and passed an award of Rs. 52,06,620/- in their favour, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. Appeal bearing No.4094/2017 has been filed the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 14.07.2017, whereas Appeal bearing No.4429/2017 has been filed by the non-claimants challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on the evening of 02.03.2014, the deceased Suresh Kumawat was traveling from Sultana to Akeli in a car bearing No.RJ 18 UA 6063 of respondent No.2/Mahendra Jat. The car was being driven by respondent No.1/Vijendra Kumar Jat rashly and negligently, as a result of which an accident occurred and Suresh Kumawat sustained grievous injuries and when he was taken to Nagaur hospital from the place of accident, it was found that he died en route. An FIR was lodged against Vijendra Kumar Jat. 4. A claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming amount of compensation. Evidence was adduced by both the parties and after hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and decree dated 14.7.2017 awarded a sum of Rs. 52,06,620/- in their favour, as indicated above. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in applying the multiplier of 16 instead of 17 for the reason that the age of deceased was above 32 years. She has further submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded a lesser amount under the head of loss of consortium and love and affection. She has further submitted that no condition of the insurance policy was breached by the insured and the vehicle in question was not used for hire and reward nor it was proved that the owner of the alleged vehicle received the fare for plying the vehicle for barat (wedding). Thus, there was no breach of the Insurance Policy, but the Insurance Company has been erroneously exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal further erred in awarding the interest @ 7.5% p.a., hence the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified. 6. Thus, there was no breach of the Insurance Policy, but the Insurance Company has been erroneously exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal further erred in awarding the interest @ 7.5% p.a., hence the impugned judgment and award needs to be modified. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the non claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error while treating the commercial use of vehicle Zylo Number RJ18UA-6063 on the basis of statement of AW-2 Ramesh Kumar, whereas at the time of accident, presence of AW-2 Ramesh Kumar was not proved. He has further submitted that AW-1 Mamta Devi is also not the eye witness of the incident. Merely from the statement of Mamta Devi, it could not be presumed that Ramesh Kumar was present on the spot at the time of accident. He has further submitted that AW-2 Ramesh Kumar in his cross-examination admitted that he sustained injuries in the accident, but he was not medically examined. From the above, it is evident that AW-2 Ramesh Kumar was not present on the spot at the time of accident. He has further contended that there was no nexus in between the use of vehicle for commercial purpose and the accident. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal qua quantum of compensation is perverse. The driver of the offending vehicle was not driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, but the learned Tribunal wrongly decided the issue in this regard and a perverse finding has been given. He has further submitted that on Income Tax Return (Ex.-16), there was no seal or signature of the Income Tax Department, despite that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs. 2,80,090/- per year and awarded the compensation on the higher side. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has committed error while exonerating the Insurance Co., hence the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal needs to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgment and award. 8. The appeal of the claimants is confined to quantum of compensation as also the liability. 9. Admittedly the claim-petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Suresh Kumar in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 02.3.2014. As per PAN Card of deceased, his date of birth was 1.1.1981. 8. The appeal of the claimants is confined to quantum of compensation as also the liability. 9. Admittedly the claim-petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Suresh Kumar in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 02.3.2014. As per PAN Card of deceased, his date of birth was 1.1.1981. In this view of the matter, at the time of death, deceased was 33 years of age and as per Income Tax Returns, his annual income was assessed to be Rs. 2,80,090/-. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , he would be entitled to receive an additional of 40% of the said income, whereas the Tribunal has awarded 50% towards his future prospects. Thus, the annual income of the appellant comes to Rs.2,80,090X16=Rs. 44,81,440+17,92,576 (40% of the additional income)= Rs.62,74,016/-. 10. Since the deceased had 6 dependents, as such after deducting 1/4th towards his expenses had the deceased been alive i.e. Rs. 15,68,504/-, his loss of income comes to Rs. 47,05,512/-. In conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,65,000/-, whereas as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Rs. 70,000/- were permissible under conventional heads. Thus, after adding Rs. 70,000/- in his loss of income, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 47,75,512/- instead of Rs. 52,06,620/-. In this view of the matter, the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 52,06,620/- to Rs. 47,75,512/-. 11. So far as the Income Tax Returns of the deceased are concerned, they are on-line returns as such no seal and signatures were put on them. 12. So far as the appeal filed by the non claimants and claimants qua liability is concerned, it has not come on record as to what was the amount for which the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. No bill or receipt has been produced. No numbers of the other vehicles which were said to be taken on hire and reward for commercial purpose were given nor their drivers/owners were examined. 13. No bill or receipt has been produced. No numbers of the other vehicles which were said to be taken on hire and reward for commercial purpose were given nor their drivers/owners were examined. 13. AW-2 Ramesh Kumar stated as under:- ,-MCY;w&2 jes'k dqekj us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd xkMh esa Mªkboj lesr 6 vkneh cSBs Fks rFkk ;g xkMh Hkokuh flag ds firk vFkkZr ftl O;fDr dh 'kknh ds firk us fdjk;s ij dkj nh FkhA blds vykok vkSj Hkh 8&10 xkfM;ka fdjk;s ij dh xbZ FkhA 14. Merely on the basis of the casual statement of the witness AW-2 Ramesh Kumar, it cannot be presumed that the offending vehicle was being plied for commercial use. Documentary evidence is the best piece of the evidence. In absence of any clinching documentary evidence, burden of proof was on the Insurance Co. to prove that the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, but it has utterly failed to discharge the burden. 15. In this view of the matter, the non claimants i.e. owner, driver and Insurance Co. all are held liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation which comes to Rs. 47,75,512/- instead of Rs. 52,06,620/-. Rest of the terms under the impugned award shall remain unchanged. 16. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated above. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.