GURUPEER HARINATHJI vs RAFIQ M. PATVEGAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
R
CNR: KAHC020072292015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF JULY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101808 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
GURUPEER HARINATHJI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SWAMIJI,
R/O. JATTIMATH, RAMLINGKHIND GALLI BELAGAVI,
NOW KIRAWALA MATH, TAL: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.BAHUBALI N.KANABARGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAFIQ M. PAVEGAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.201, LONDA VILLAGE,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX (GROUND FLOOR),
ST
NO.186/7, 1 CROSS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
WILSON GARDEN RAYAL SUNDARAM,
FINANCE LTD., BANGALURU-560027.
3. GURU P
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL,
R/O. SNEHA COMPOUND,
GAMANAGATTI BUILDING,
LAXMI NAGAR, HUBLI,
TAL AND DIST: DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2015, PASSED
IN MVC NO.1804/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is the appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short ‘M.V. Act’) by the
claimant challenging the judgment and award dated
28.03.2015 passed in MVC No.1804/2011 on the file of II
Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’).
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as
they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience
and clarity.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
3. T he facts established by claimant before the
Tribunal is that on 12.12.2009 at about 03.30 p.m.
Pirayogi Gulshannath Gurupeer Harinthaji Maharaj was
proceeding on Bajaj M-80 motor cycle bearing No.KA-25/J-
2068 from Khanapur towards Madigunji on left side of the
road; at third turn on NH-4 near Gangavali village, a truck
bearing registration No.KA-22/B-2350 came in opposite
direction from Londa towards Khanapur, drove it rashly
and negligently, endangering human life, and dashed
against the motorcycle of Harinathaji Maharaj and caused
the accident. Due to the accident, he sustained grievous
injuries and died at the spot. Claimant is the biological
father of the deceased has filed claim petition under
Section 166 of the M.V Act before the Tribunal.
4. R espondent No.1/owner of the truck remained
absent. Respondent No.2/insurer of the truck has filed its
objections taking all the available defence to the insurer
and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
5. T he insurer has further taken contention that
the claimant was not depending on the deceased, as
deceased devoted his life and surrendered his life to the
God. He renounced the worldly life and leading life of Yogi
and sadhu by detaching himself from his parents;
preaching and propagating at Gopinatha Math and thus,
claimant being the father of deceased cannot file the claim
compensation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim
petition.
6. A fter framing issues, recording evidence and
hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that claimant is entitled for global
compensation of ₹50,000/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and
declined to grant compensation under the head ‘loss of
dependency’ and other conventional heads.
7. A ggrieved by the said judgment and award of
the Tribunal, claimant/appellant is before this Court.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
8. L earned counsel for appellant Sri Bahubali N.
Kanabaragi would submit that the claimant is the
biological father of the deceased. Hence, he comes under
the definition of legal representative. In this regard, he
places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Montford Brothers of St.Gabriel and Ors
1
Vs. United India Insurance and Ors . and also the
recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case
of S.B.Shivamurthy Shivachary Hiremutt Vs. Shabir
2
Ahamed and others . Hence, claimant is entitled for
compensation under all conventional heads and also under
the head loss of dependency and hence prayed for
allowing the appeal.
9. L earned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri
S.K.Kayakmath would submit that claimant is only the
biological father of the deceased. However, much prior to
the death of deceased- Harinathaji Maharaj, he renounced
1
C.A.NOs.3269-3270/2007
2
MFA No.200322/2024
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
the world and became monk (sanyasi) and became the
Matadeesh of the Kirawala Math, Khanapur. Thus, claimant
is not entitled for any compensation towards death of his
biological son. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. H aving heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the appeal papers and Trial Court records, the point that
arise for consideration is
“Whether claimant being the biological father of
deceased can be called as legal representative of
deceased who renounced the world as per Section
165 of the Motor Vehicles Act?”
11. Finding of this Court on the above point is in
Negative for the following:
REASONS
According to Section 165 of the M.V Act, the claim
petition can be filed for adjudication upon claims for
compensation in respect of accidents involving death of, or
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
bodily injury to a persons arising out of the use of motor
vehicles or damages to any property of the third party
before the Court having territorial jurisdiction.
12. Under Section 166 of M.V Act, an application for
compensation arising out of an accident mentioned in
Section 165(1) of the M.V Act can be filed
a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
b) by the owner of the property; or
c) where death has resulted from the accident by all
or any of the legal representatives of the deceased.
d) by any agent duly authorized by the person
injured or all or any of the legal representatives of
the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal
representatives of the deceased have not joined in
any such application for compensation, the
application shall be made on behalf of or for the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
benefit of all the legal representatives of the
deceased and the legal representatives who have
not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to
the application.
13. The word ‘legal representative’ is not defined in
Motor Vehicles Act. In this regard, in the citation relied by
learned counsel for appellant of Hon'ble Apex Court, in the
case of Montford Brothers of St.Gabriel’s Case cited
supra, at Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, it is held as follows.
“9. The Act does not define the term "legal
representative" but the Tribunal has noted in
its judgment and order that Clause (C) of Rule
2 of the Mizoram Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal Rules, 1988, defines the term 'legal
representative' as having the same meaning as
assigned to it in Clause (11) of Section 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is as
follows:
Section 2(11) 'Legal representative' means
a person who in law represents the estate of
a deceased person and includes any person
who intermeddles with the estate of the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
deceased and where a party sues or is sued
in a representative character the person on
whom the estate devolves On the death of
the party so suing or sued.
10. From the aforesaid provisions it is clear
that in case of death of a person in a motor
vehicle accident, right is available to a legal
representative of the deceased or the agent of
the legal representative to lodge a claim for
compensation under the provisions of the Act.
The issue as to who is a legal representative or
its agent is basically an issue of fact and may
be decided one way or the other dependent
upon the facts of a particular case. But as a
legal proposition it is undeniable that a person
claiming to be a legal representative has the
locus to maintain an application for
compensation under Section 166 of the Act,
either directly or through any agent, subject to
result of a dispute raised by the other side on
this issue.”
14. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
S.B.Shivamurthy Shivachary Hiremutt’s case cited
supra in Paragraphs Nos. 20 and 21 held as follows:
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
“20. The Tribunal, in denying compensation on the
ground that there were no dependants, has
adopted an unduly restrictive and formalistic
interpretation of the concept of dependency.
Such an approach fails to take into account the
broader jurisprudential evolution in motor
accident compensation law, where dependency
is not confined to blood relations but extends to
all those who are economically or functionally
reliant on the deceased.
21. The error of the Tribunal lies in equating
dependency exclusively with familial
dependency and overlooking institutional
dependency. This is contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which
clearly recognises that the expression “legal
representative” must be interpreted in a
manner that advances the object of
compensation law, namely, to provide
restitution for loss caused by death.”
15. In the aforesaid case the deceased renounced
the world and became Matadeesha and died in the road
traffic accident. In this case, the Division Bench has relied
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
upon Section 2(11) CPC to decide who is legal
representative, which reads as follows:
“2. Definitions .- xxxx
(11) “Legal representative” means a person
who in law represents the estate of a
deceased person and includes any person
who intermeddles with the estate of the
deceased and where a party sues or is sued
in a representative character, the person on
whom the estate devolves on the death of
the party so suing or sued;”
16. Thus, any person who in law represents the
estate of the deceased person would be a legal
representative and includes any person who intermeddles
with the estate of the deceased and will be called as legal
representative.
17. Once the person renounces the world and
became Swamiji of the Math, then he severed his ties with
his biological family. The Swamiji by severing all his
connection with his biological family became Mathdeesha
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
and accepted ascetic life. Thus, there is complete
disassociation with his biological family in all respects. But,
he continued to serve the needs of Math and discharged
managerial duties of Math. In such circumstances, the
religious institution, being the recipient of the fruits of his
labour and service, would stand in the position of legal
representative and would be entitled to claim
compensation. Where a deceased had severed ties with his
biological family upon entering religious circles, it can be
presumed that the religious institution shall be the legal
representative of the deceased.
18. In the instant case, the claimant is not
representing the Math of which deceased Harinathaji
Maharaj was the Matadeesha. But, he has filed the claim
petition only on the ground that he is the biological father
of the deceased. If the claim petition had been filed on
behalf of the Math by its Administrative officer or any
other responsible officer of the Math, definitely the claim
petition would have been maintainable. However, in the
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
present case as discussed above, it is filed by the
biological father and not by the Math to whom the
deceased represented. Hence, claimant is not at all
entitled for compensation. However, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation of ₹50,000/- which is not being
challenged by the respondents. Hence, this Court confirms
the said compensation and held that claimant is not
entitled for any additional compensation from the
respondents.
19. Hence, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is dismissed by confirming the
judgment and award dated 28.03.2015 passed in
MVC No.1804/2011 on the file of II Addl. Sessions
Judge, Belagavi.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:10066
MFA No. 101808 of 2015
CNR: KAHC020072292015
b) No order as to costs.
c) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB
CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13