JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals are arising out of the same judgment and award rendered by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (First), Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to, ‘the Tribunal’) on 25.01.2003 in Civil Misc. Claim No.66/2000, while dealing with a the particular accident which occurred on 01.07.1999, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.3,44,000/- as compensation to the appellants/claimants. 2. The CMA No.354/2003 is filed by Insurance Company praying to set aside the judgment and award dated 25.01.2003 or in alternative, fastening of complete liability on respondent Nos.7 and 8. 3. The CMA No.631/2003 is preferred by Smt. Pani Devi & Ors. seeking enhancement of compensation as well as interest to be awarded thereupon. 4. The first CMA No.354/2003 has been filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver (respondent No.7) of the truck bearing No.RJ-22-G-0796 to which deceased-Govind Ram met with an accident on 01.07.1999 was not possessing valid driving license thus, there was breach of the policy conditions. It has been prayed that appeal against judgment and award dated 25.01.2003 may be accepted and the judgment and award dated 25.01.2003 may be set aside. 5. The second CMA No.631/2003 has been filed by the appellants stating inter alia that the deceased was working in ‘chuna bhatti’ and apart from aforesaid work, he was also involved in agricultural activities. The appellants have stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal erroneously assessed his income at Rs.2,000/- per month though, the respondents neither produced any evidence for rebutting the income of the deceased nor cross examined the appellants on the point of the monthly income. The appellants by way of filing present appeal have prayed that the impugned judgment and award dated 25.01.2003 may be modified and the compensation may be enhanced suitably by following the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) AIR (SC) 5157. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Indisputably, deceased-Govind Ram on 01.07.1999 met with an accident with a truck bearing No.RJ-22-G-0796, which was driven by one Shri Moola Ram. Deceased-Govind Ram in the aforesaid accident sustained severe injuries and died on 12.08.1999 while taking treatment in a hospital. 8. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Indisputably, deceased-Govind Ram on 01.07.1999 met with an accident with a truck bearing No.RJ-22-G-0796, which was driven by one Shri Moola Ram. Deceased-Govind Ram in the aforesaid accident sustained severe injuries and died on 12.08.1999 while taking treatment in a hospital. 8. It is the case of the respondent-Insurance Company (CMA No.354/2003) that in the absence of a valid license with the driver, there was fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question and hence, the claim made by appellants/claimants was not payable. The learned Tribunal in its judgment and award dated 25.01.2003 has decided issue No.2 framed in this regard against the respondents-Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal in its judgment and award dated 25.01.2003 has recorded a finding of fact that the onus of proving the fact that the driver was not having a valid license for driving the vehicle at the time of accident was upon Insurance Company, which failed to discharge the same. The learned Tribunal has further held that the objection with regard to wilful breach of the conditions of the policy could not be establish by the Insurance Company before it. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, when insurer takes the defense that the license of the driver at the time of accident was invalid, the onus is then upon the Insurance Company to prove the same by producing relevant documents and evidence. The Insurer only with a view to avoid its liability cannot be permitted to raise such a defense. The Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company had failed to prove/establish wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the CMA No.354/2003 preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company deserves to be rejected and is accordingly dismissed. 11. The appeal filed by appellants/claimants (CMA No.631/2003) submitting that the learned Tribunal had utterly failed to take into consideration the correct monthly income of the deceased and thus, the judgment and award dated 25.01.2003 suffers from gross illegality. It was contended that the component of rise in income of deceased-Govind Ram by future prospects, while evaluating the compensation awarded to the claimants has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. It was contended that the component of rise in income of deceased-Govind Ram by future prospects, while evaluating the compensation awarded to the claimants has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 12. Indisputably, in the present case, no documentary evidence was produced by the appellants/claimants to prove the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6000 per month. It is a settled law that in the absence of positive documentary evidence or salary certificate, the minimum wages notification should generally be applied as a yardstick to determine the income of the deceased. 13. After going through the record, this Court is of the firm view that in absence of salary certificate/documentary evidence being produced by the appellants/claimants, the prevalent minimum wage had rightly been considered by the Tribunal to determine monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2,000, which does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.2,000/-. 15. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that if the deceased was self-employed or a person on a fixed salary and his age is between 26-30 years, then the multiplier of 17 should be applied in respect of claims filed under Motor Vehicles Act and the future prospects would be paid to the tune of 40% of the established income. The amounts awarded on account of other heads are also required to be changed and the amount of compensation in the present case is required to be computed as under:- S.No. Heads Amount (Rs.) 1. Monthly Income 2,000/- 2. 40% of the actual income as adjustment for future prospects. 8,00/- 3. Monthly income + 40% for future prospects 2,800/- 4. 1/3 of income as deduction towards personal expenses (933.33/-) 5. Annual Income after deduction towards personal expenses 1866.67 x 12= 22,400/- 6. Age multiplier 22,400 x17 =3,80,800/ 7. Conventional heads namely Funeral Charges, Loss of consortium and Loss of Estate 70,000/- 8. Total Compensation 4,50,800/- 9. Amount awarded by the Tribunal 3,44,000/- 10. Enhanced amount 1,06,800/- 16. In light of the above observations and considering the tabular computation, the appeal is allowed in part. Age multiplier 22,400 x17 =3,80,800/ 7. Conventional heads namely Funeral Charges, Loss of consortium and Loss of Estate 70,000/- 8. Total Compensation 4,50,800/- 9. Amount awarded by the Tribunal 3,44,000/- 10. Enhanced amount 1,06,800/- 16. In light of the above observations and considering the tabular computation, the appeal is allowed in part. The total motor accident compensation of Rs.3,44,000/-awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants/appellants is increased by Rs.1,06,800/-to reach a new total of Rs.4,50,800/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid within two months along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition. The proportion and disbursement shall remain same as ordered by the learned Tribunal and the amount of compensation is modified to the above extent. 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, the CMA No.631/2003 preferred on behalf of the appellants/claimants is allowed in part. 18. The record of the case shall be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.