Legal heirs of a deceased may be entitled to compensation based on a testamentary directive despite other claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.285 of

2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 13.01.2011 at about 12.45.

pm, while the deceased was riding the motor bike, a Tata Goods carriage bearing registration No.HR-47B-2437 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the bike. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹10,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondent/driver and owner of the offending goods carriage vehicle filed joint written statement contending that no accident had taken place on the alleged date. They further submitted that, if any compensation is awarded, the same is liable to be realised from the third respondent–insurance company, and also asserted that the first respondent possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and contending that the petitioner is not the legal heir of the deceased and that all the legal heirs have not been impleaded as parties. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,95,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the appellant herein is not a legal heir/legal representative and is not entitled to get any compensation. Since the deceased was a priest, the legal heirs were initially not impleaded in the party array and it is only later, the legal heirs were impleaded in the party array. The learned standing counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Catholic Diocese, Muvattupuzha and others v. Muthaiah P and another [ 2019 (4) KHC 865 ] wherein it was held that Catholic Diocese is not entitled for any compensation and that only the legal heirs are entitled to compensation.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a religious priest and not the Catholic Diocese or a diocesan priest. It was further submitted that he had executed his Last will wherein his entire assets are bequeathed in favour of the Monastery and, therefore, whatever amount is awarded, the Monastery is entitled to the said amount. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Montford Brothers of St.Garbiel and another v. United India Insurance Company and another (2014) 3 SCC 394 ] and submitted that though insurance company had raised a contention before the tribunal that Monastery is not entitled for any compensation the said contention was not pressed. Moreover, the insurance company has not filed any appeal challenging the award passed by the tribunal.

7. I find force, in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The fact that the deceased priest was a religious priest and that he had executed his Last Will which was produced a