The Diocese lacks legal standing to claim compensation for a deceased priest's death; only siblings are recognized as legal representatives for such claims.

JUDGMENT

The 3 ^rd respondent in OP(MV).No.269/2013 on the file of Additional MACT-II Thodupuzha is the appellant and the Original petitioner in the OP is the respondent. The above petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation in respect of the death of Fr.Tom Kalathil, in a road traffic accident.

2. As per the averments in the petition, on 16.4.2013, Fr. Tom Kalathil was travelling in a motor bike bearing registration No.KL-6C-7444 from Pulliyanmala to Kattappana and when he reached near hill top, a lorry bearing registration No.KL-37-8293 driven by the 1 ^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the motor bike and as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He succumbed to the injuries at the hospital on the same day. The 2 ^nd respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 3 ^rd respondent is its insurer. In the OP he claimed a compensation of Rs.12 Lakhs.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3 ^rd respondent filed a written statement disputing the maintainability of the petition and alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. However, it is admitted that the lorry had valid insurance coverage.

4. The evidence in the case consists of Exts.A1 to A15. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned award, allowing a compensation of Rs.13,19,000/-. Being aggrieved by the above Award, the 3 ^rd respondent preferred this appeal.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration is the following :

(i) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the petition ?

(ii) Whether the Diocese is entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased priest ?

6. Heard Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri.Sachithananda Pai, the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. The points : In this case the OP was filed by Fr.Mathew Paikada, Provincial, St.Joseph Capuchian, Provincialate, SH Mount P.O., Kottayam. In the petition it is claimed that he has filed the OP for and on behalf of the Provincialate as the deceased was a member of the Provincialate. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the Provincialate cannot be considered as legal representative of the deceased and therefore, he would argue that the OP filed on behalf of the Provincialate claiming compensation on the death of the deceased priest is not maintainable. In support of the above argument, he has relied upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Catholic Diocese, Muvattupuzha and Others v. Muthaiah P and Another, 2019 (4) KHC 865.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayasree N. and Others v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 5218, in support of his argument that the Provincialate is the true legal representative of the deceased priest.

9. It is true that in the decision in Jayasree (supra) in paragraph 20 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in an earlier decision in Montford Brothers of St.Gabriel and Another v. United India Insurance and Another, the Court held that the appellant Society was the legal representative of the deceased 'brother' in the following words:

“In Montford Brothers of St.Gabriel and Another v. United India Insurance and Another, (2014 KHC 4054 : (2014) 2 SCC 394 : 2014 (1) KHC SN 26 : 2014 (1) SCALE 645 : 2014 (2) KLJ 228 : AIR 2014 SC 1550 : 2014 ACJ 667) this Court was considering the claim petition of a charitable society for award of compensation on account of the death of its member. The appellant – society therein was a registered charitable society and was runn