ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The appellant who was the claimant before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shorapur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) is before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2023 in MVC No.175/2013.

2. The proceedings before the Tribunal had been filed on account of death of Sutreshwar Shivacharya Swamiji in a road traffic accident on 20.05.2011 at 03.00 p.m., He was the priest of Bale Honnur Shrimad Rambapur Virsinhasan Mutt, Achaler, Taluk Lohara, District Osmanabad. The accident occurred while he was proceeding in a jeep near Ambika Dhaba Bormani road, due to a head-on collision with a truck bearing Reg.No.KA-38-7947, which was registered by the insurance company.

3. The Tribunal, considering that the deceased was 55 years of age and accepting the fact that he was earning around Rs.20,000/- per month by giving lectures as also further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from agriculture, being of the opinion that the successor of the Mutt was not a legal representative to claim loss of dependency, as such, denied compensation in respect of loss of dependency and awarded compensation only in respect of loss of estate at Rs.1,00,000/-and towards funeral expenses at Rs.20,000/- coming to a grand total of Rs.1,20,000/-. It is challenging the same, the claimant is before this Court contending that the Mutt, having lost the services of the Head of the Mutt, who expired in the said accident, loss of dependency is required to be granted to the Mutt of which the claimant is a representative.

4. In this regard, Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Montford Brothers of St.Gabriel and Anr., Vs. United India Insurance and Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC 1550, more particularly, paragraph Nos.5, 6, 9 and 17, which are reproduced hereinafter for easy reference:

“5. One `Brother’ of the Society, namely, Alex Chandy Thomas was a Director cum-Head master of St. Peter High School and he died in a motor accident on 22.06.1992. The accident was between a Jeep driven by the deceased and a Maruti Gypsy covered by insurance policy issued by the respondent Insurance Company. At the time of death the deceased was aged 34 years and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,190/-. The claim petition bearing No.55 of 1992 was filed before M.A.C.T., Aizawal by appellant no.2 on being duly authorized by the appellant no.1-the society. The owner of the Gypsy vehicle discussed in his written statement that vehicle was duly insured and hence liability, if any, was upon the Insurance Company. The respondent-Insurance Company also filed a written statement and thereby raised various objections to the claim. But as is clear from the written statement under Annexure P.2 it never raised the issue that since the deceased was a `Brother’ and therefore without any family or heir, the appellant could not file claim petition for want of locus standi. The issue no.1 regarding maintainability of claim petition was not pressed by the respondents. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,52,000/- in favour of the claimant and against the opposite parties with a direction to the insurer to deposit Rs.2,27,000/- with the Tribunal as Rs.25,000/- had already been deposited as interim compensation. The Tribunal also permitted interest at the rate of 12% per annum, but from the date of judgment dated 14.07.1994 passed in MACT case Nos. 55 and 82 of 1992.

6. Instead of preferring appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the respondent Company preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gauhati High Court and by the impugned order under appeal dated 20.08.2002, the High Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition (C) No.20 of 2002 ex-parte, and held the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal to be invalid and incompetent being in favour of person/persons who according to the High court were not competent to c