Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
Suraj Govindaraj, Tyagaraja N. Inavally, JJ
SHRI. S.B SHIVAMURTHY SHIVACHARY HIREMUTT – Appellant
Versus
SHABIR AHAMED – Respondent
MISCLL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200322 OF 2024 (MV-D)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Krupa Sagar Patil
For the Respondents: Preeti Patil Melkundi
A religious institution (Mutt) qualifies as a legal representative of its deceased head (Mathadipati) and is entitled to compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 2(11) - Definition of 'legal representative' - A religious institution (Mutt) can be a legal representative of a deceased Mathadipati (head of Mutt) and is entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The term 'legal representative' is of wide amplitude and includes not only legal heirs but also those who represent the estate of the deceased. Institutional dependency is recognized as a valid basis for compensation. (Paras 9-25)
(B) Compensation - Calculation - For a deceased aged 65 years, notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month, multiplier of '7', future prospects at 10%, loss of dependency of Rs.5,54,400/- awarded. Conventional heads (loss of estate and funeral expenses) enhanced by 10% every three years on a compounding basis per Pranay Sethi. (Paras 27-36)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, representing a Mutt, claimed compensation for the death of the Mathadipati (Sutreshwar Shivacharya Swamiji) in a road traffic accident on 20.05.2011. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of estate and funeral expenses, denying compensation for loss of dependency on the ground that the successor of the Mutt was not a legal representative to claim loss of dependency.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Mutt represents the estate and interest of the deceased Mathadipati in a legal and functional sense and qualifies as a 'legal representative'. The Tribunal's restrictive interpretation of dependency was set aside. Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,74,330/- with 6% interest was awarded.
Issues: Whether the Mutt or its successor can be a 'legal representative' of the deceased Mathadipati and claim compensation for loss of dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The term 'legal representative' under Section 2(11) CPC is of wide amplitude and includes a religious institution that represents the estate and derives benefit from the deceased's services. Institutional dependency is a valid basis for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Mutt qualifies as a legal representative and is entitled to claim compensation for loss of dependency.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court proceedings and accident details (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tribunal's award and denial of loss of dependency (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments based on montford brothers case (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. issue: mutt as legal representative (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. purposive interpretation of legal representative (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. functional and institutional dependency recognized (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. institutional dependency and mutt's claim (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. compensation under beneficial legislation (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. calculation of compensation and notional income (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. enhanced compensation and final order (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
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
