Koshy, J.

Appellants are the parents of one Fr. Jose Vettukallumpurath who died in a motor vehicle accident. He was a member of Monastery called Carmel Provincial House, Muvattupuzha. The appellants filed a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha and it was numbered as O.P.(M.V) No.662 of 1995. Monastery also filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of the very same Priest and it was numbered as O.P.(M.V.) No.663 of 1995. Both cases were heard together and a common award was passed. This appeal is filed against the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.662 of 1995. The award in O.P.(M.V.) No.663 of 1995 granting compensation to the provincial house is not challenged. However, as directed by this court, provincial house was impleaded as a party in this case and they were also heard. So, being a motor accident claim appeal, without going into the technicalities, we may consider whether the award of the Tribunal in granting compensation to the provincial house instead of the parents of the deceased is correct or not. It is submitted that the Insurance company has deposited the entire amount awarded and it has already withdrawn by the provincial house, the monastery, in which the deceased was a member.

2. The appellants, based on the decisions in G.K. Kempegowda v. Lucinda (AIR 1985 Karnataka 231) and In the matter of Indian Succession Act v. Rt. Rev. Casmir Gnanadesikan, Archbishop of Madras, Mylapore (1990 (1) KLT 334) argued that merely because a Christian becoming a Nun or Priest will not lose their rights under the Indian Succession Act and they can inherit their property or their property can be inherited as statutory rights are not lost. It is further submitted that since the appellants are natural heirs, they are entitled to get compensation due to the death of their son.

3. Now, we will refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rukhsana v. Nazrunnisa (2000 (2) KLT Short Notes 38). There the Supreme Court held that the amount awarded as compensation due to the death has to be disbursed to the legal representatives as decided by the court and Succession Certificate as envisaged under the Indian Succession Act is not applicable. The amount now claimed is compensation due to the death of the deceased Priest who became a member of the monastery. Therefore, compensation has to be decided not on the basis of the Indian Succession Act. In this case, the total amount awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.1,03,000/-, out of which Rs.90,000/- was awarded as compensation for loss of service to the monastery, Rs.3,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. Admittedly, funeral expenses were not incurred by the appellants and therefore they cannot claim the same. Major dispute is regarding the dependency income or compensation for loss of service. Before going into the merits of the case, we may consider the observations of the Supreme Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty ((2003) 7 SCC 197) where the Supreme Court held that the object of providing compensation is to place the claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before the accident. In paragraph 12 it is observed as follows:

“12. It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Morris in West v. Shephard (1964 AC 326). Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. The object of providing compensation is to place the claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before the accident. Broadly speaking, in the case of death the basis of compensation is loss of pecuniary benefits to the dependants of the deceased which includes pecuniary loss, expenses etc. and loss to the estate. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the legal representatives due to the sudden demise of the deceased in