Key Points: - The court held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle; liability lies with the owner unless statutory exceptions apply (!) (!) (!) (!) . - For calculating compensation, the court applied Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi principles: determine income (with permissible guesswork supported by evidence), apply personal living expense deduction (1/3 for three dependents), consider future prospects (40% uplift for self-employed under 40), use appropriate multiplier (M-15 for 37 years), and add conventional heads with 10% annual enhancement per Sunita case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Conventional heads (loss of estate, funeral expenses, spousal/parental/filial consortium) are to be enhanced by 10% at three-year intervals; specific awards in this case: loss of dependency Rs.11,76,120/-, funeral Rs.19,965/-, loss of estate Rs.19,965/-, spousal consortium Rs.53,240/-, parental consortium Rs.1,06,480/- each, total Rs.13,75,770/- (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The owner of the goods vehicle (registered owner) remains liable if he is the true owner or in possession; if transfers are not properly registered, liability remains with the registered owner; Naveen Kumar etc. and subsequent case law cited (!) (!) (!) .

What is the liability of the insurer for a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

What is the method for determining monthly income and future prospects for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in a death claim?

What is the appropriate head and amount of conventional compensation (loss of estate, loss of consortium, funeral expenses) and the applicable annual enhancement?