JUDGMENT : T.C.D. Sekhar, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/The New India Assurance Company Limited questioning the order dated 10.06.2019 passed in MVOP No.120 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were referred before the Tribunal. 3. The facts leading to the case on hand are as follows: (i) The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Chikkala Venkata Rao (herein referred as the ‘deceased’), filed petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicles Act seeking to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. (ii) It is the case of the petitioners that on 03.07.2015 at about 04.30 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding in the lorry as the owner of the goods, when it reached Gundugolanu junction, the driver of the lorry, while over taking another lorry, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the said lorry from behind. As a result of which, the deceased sustained crush injuries and died instantaneously. It is further stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. On account of death of the deceased, the parents of the deceased lost financial support apart from other petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed the above petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased. (iii) Respondent No.1/driver was set ex-parte. The claim was resisted by respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle stating that the 1 st respondent/driver had valid license at the time of accident and the vehicle has been insured with respondent No.3. Therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. (iv) A separate counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.3 stating that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It is further stated that the 5 th respondent is living separately and is not dependant on the deceased. With the above pleadings, respondent No.3 prayed to dismiss the petition. (v) In order to prove the case of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the other hand, respondent No.3 examined R.W.1, its employee. With the above pleadings, respondent No.3 prayed to dismiss the petition. (v) In order to prove the case of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the other hand, respondent No.3 examined R.W.1, its employee. (iv) Considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence put forth by the parties, the Tribunal by impugned order partly allowed the claim petition by granting compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased was unauthorized passenger who boarded the offending vehicle during the transit and contended that he was not the owner of the goods. In order to prove the said contention, the appellant/respondent No.3 examined R.W.1, who categorically admitted that the deceased was owner of the goods. Further, on perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the deceased boarded the offending vehicle as owner of the goods at 11.00 p.m. on 02.07.2015. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the admission of R.W.1, it is clear that the deceased was owner of the goods and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the deceased was unauthorized passenger. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was unauthorized passenger cannot be countenanced and the same is hereby rejected. 6. Further, though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners are not dependents on the deceased, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. Be that as it may, on perusal of the pleadings, it is clear that the petitioners are none other than the legal heirs of the deceased. Except making bald denial in the counter affidavit by respondent No.3, it did not make any effort to prove the same. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the contention of the appellant/respondent No.3 cannot be sustainable. 7. Except making bald denial in the counter affidavit by respondent No.3, it did not make any effort to prove the same. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the contention of the appellant/respondent No.3 cannot be sustainable. 7. Further, learned counsel for the appellant would content that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and that the petitioners did not file any documentary proof to show that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. 8. As can be seen from the record, the claim petition was filed by the petitioners under Section 163(3) of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the compensation has to be determined in accordance with Schedule-II. 9. On perusal of the order under challenge, the Tribunal, by taking into consideration of the age of the deceased based on Ex.A2/post-mortem certificate, taken the annual income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- after deducting 1/4 th towards his personal expenditure, awarded an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- towards compensation under various conventional heads. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has arrived the said compensation by following the principles laid down in the case of “ National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 ” rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 10. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.