IMPORTANT POINTS
The siblings of the deceased priest alone can be regarded as his legal representatives for raising the claim for compensation. The siblings of the deceased priest have no case that they were financially dependent on the deceased. They are, therefore, not entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency. Of course, they are entitled to compensation under the pecuniary heads like, transportation expenses, damage to clothing and articles, funeral expenses, and under the non-pecuniary heads like loss of estate, pain and suffering, and loss of love and affection. It is seen that the Tribunal has granted compensation under all the aforesaid pecuniary heads and under the non-pecuniary heads of loss of estate and pain and suffering to the Catholic diocese. Having regard to the fact that the accident is one that took place in the year 2009, it cannot be said that the siblings of the deceased priest would have been entitled to altogether more compensation than what was granted under those heads to the Catholic diocese. The only head under which compensation was not granted by the Tribunal to the Catholic diocese is "loss of love and affection".

JUDGMENT :

The claimants in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal have come up in this appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal.

2. A Catholic diocesan priest died in a motor accident took place on 21.1.2009. He was aged 51 years at the time of accident. The Catholic diocese under which the deceased priest was working and the siblings of the deceased priest, together preferred the application for compensation. Rs.15,00,000/-was the claim made in the proceedings. The Tribunal, placing reliance on the decision of this court in Varghese v. Krishnan Nair, 2004 (2) KLT 783 found that the siblings of the deceased priest are not entitled to compensation. Consequently, the claim petition was disposed of permitting the Catholic diocese to realise a sum of Rs.3,85,116/-from the insurer of the offending vehicle. The claimants are aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side as also Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned amicus curiae appointed in the matter.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants, placing reliance on Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 2(k) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, contended that claimants 2 to 5 who are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased priest are entitled to claim compensation, and the finding to the contrary rendered by the Tribunal is incorrect and unsustainable. The learned counsel also contended that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is meagre and would not satisfy the statutory requirement of just compensation in a case of this nature.

5. The learned amicus curiae submitted that although the expression "legal representative" defined in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has to be construed liberally in the context of Indian family backgrounds, having regard to the object of the legislation, viz, to provide compensation to victims of motor accidents, it cannot be stretched that far to include Catholic diocese within its sweep in a case involving death of a Catholic diocesan priest. It was pointed out by the learned amicus curiae that the proposition reiterated by this court in Varghese that when a person enters a religious order after renouncing the worldly pleasures, he is deemed to be dead to the world and his heirs at once inherit from him the assets he had, is no longer good law as clarified by this Court in Msgr. Xavier Chullickal v. Raphael (2017 (2) KLT 1072). It was pointed out by the learned amicus curiae that, among Catholics, there are two categories of priests namely diocesan priests and religious priests. Although all the priests are ordained to preach gospel and serve the people of the God in the person of Jesus Christ, they are distinguished by contrasting the vows made by the religious priests and the promises made by the diocesan priests. It was pointed out that a diocesan priest does not make a promise of poverty and in contrast, a religious priest takes three solemn vows before he is ordained, including the vow of poverty. Religious priest thus owns nothing, and shares things in common with others in his community. According to the learned amicus curiae, even in the case of religious priest, the religious order cannot be regarded as legal representative. It was pointed out that the priest involved in the case being a diocesan priest, only his heirs, in terms of the Indian Succession Act, are entitled to compensation. The learned amicus curiae has taken me through various decisions of the Apex Court as also this court, on the basis of which he has formulated the aforesaid opinion.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side as also the learned amicus curiae.

7. In Varghese, in the context of a motor accident claim raised in respect of the death of a Christian priest, placing reliance on the proposition that a person would be deemed to be dead to the world, when he enters a religious order after re