Where a deceased travels in a goods vehicle as owner of the goods, his presence is lawful and cannot be construed as that of an unauthorised passenger.

1. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 163A — Structured Formula — Dependency — Proof and Evidentiary Burden

Held, contention that deceased was an unauthorised passenger rejected. Based on evidence of P.W.2 and admission of R.W.1, deceased travelled as “owner of the goods”. No material placed by insurer to show otherwise. (Paras 5)

Held further, respondents being legal heirs, insurer produced no evidence to prove absence of dependency — mere bald denial insufficient. (Para 6)

2. Compensation — Assessment under Second Schedule — No proof of income — Tribunal’s method upheld

Held, since petition filed under S.163A, compensation must be determined per Schedule-II. Tribunal took annual income as ₹40,000, deducted one-fourth personal expenses, awarded ₹3,90,000 applying Pranay Sethi. No illegality or infirmity found. (Paras 8–9)

3. Result

Appeal dismissed. Compensation affirmed. No order as to costs. Pending applications closed. (Para 10)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND REASONS IN THE COURT’S VIEW

A. Procedural History

• MACMA No.1069/2019 under Order 41 CPC.

• Challenge to Tribunal order dated 10-06-2019 in M.V.O.P. No.120/2015 granting ₹3,90,000 compensation.

• IA No.1 sought condonation of 32-day delay; IA No.2 sought suspension of decree.

B. Core Case Facts

• Petition filed by legal heirs of deceased Chikkala Venkata Rao under S.163A Motor Vehicles Act claiming ₹6,00,000.

• Accident 03-07-2015, 04:30 a.m., lorry-to-lorry collision while deceased accompanying goods.

• Respondent No.1 driver ex-parte; owner raised policy defence; insurer alleged unauthorised travel and lack of dependency.

C. Evidence Appraisal

• P.Ws.1 & 2 examined, Exs. A-1 to A-4 marked.

• R.W.1 (insurer’s employee) supported petitioners’ case on deceased’s status as owner of goods.

D. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Unauthorised passenger plea rejected

   • Insurer’s own witness admitted deceased was owner of goods.

   • Petitioners’ evidence consistent; insurer’s contention unsustainable.

2. Dependency denial rejected

   • Legal heir status pleaded; insurer showed no contrary proof.

   • Bald denial insufficient.

3. Quantum challenge rejected

   • Claim under S.163A must follow structured formula (Schedule-II).

   • Tribunal correctly assessed income at ₹40,000, deducted ¼ personal expenses, applied Pranay Sethi, and granted ₹3,90,000.

E. Outcome

• Appeal dismissed.

• Compensation maintained.

• No costs.

• Connected applications closed.