S.B SHIVAMURTHY SHIVACHARY HIREMUTT vs. SHABIR AHAMED AND ORS

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR
R



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

AND


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200322 OF 2024 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. S.B SHIVAMURTHY SHIVACHARY HIREMUTT,
AGE : 42 YEARS,
OCC: PRIEST OF MUTT,
R/O: DEVAPUR, TALUK: SHORAPUR,
DISTRICT:YADGIR – 585 101.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHABIR AHAMED
AGE : MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING
NO.KA-38-7947,
R/O: SHA GUNJ, BIDAR – 585 101.

2. THE MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
KALABURAGI – 585 103.

3. AMRUT G. PATNE
S/O GURLINGAPPA,
AGE : MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF JEEP
BEARING NO.MH-13/5529,
R/O: KUMBHARI,








Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


TALUK AND DISTRICT : SOLAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA STATE – 585 103.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 15.02.2024, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01.09.2023, PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, SHORAPUR, IN FILE BEARING M.V.C.NO.175/2013 AND
ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY

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

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


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

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


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

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


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 claim
compensation under the Motor Vehicle
Act. This was the only ground of
challenge to the judgment and Award of
the Tribunal. The High Court, however,
did not disturb the Award of Rs.25,000/-
already made as interim compensation.
Review Petition preferred by the
appellants was also rejected on
10.12.2003 but after noticing the
relevant facts relating to locus of the
appellants.

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

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


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 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”.

17. In the light of the aforesaid
discussions, we have no hesitation in
holding that the High Court erred in law
in setting aside the judgment of the
learned Tribunal by ignoring the fact that
the respondent-Insurance Company had
not pressed issue no.1 nor it had pleaded
and led evidence in respect to the said
issue. The Court explained that the
appellants were the legal representatives
of the deceased. Such an issue of facts
could not be decided by the High Court
for the first time in a writ petition which
could only be entertained under Article
227 of the Constitution for limited
purpose.”


5. By relying on the above judgment, learned counsel
for the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court
in that case has set aside the finding of the Hon'ble
Gauhati High Court, which held that the Brotherhood
was not entitled to compensation for the death of a

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


Brother who was a Member of the said Brotherhood
in a road traffic accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court
affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal by holding that
the term ‘legal representative’ not having been
defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or in the
Mizoram Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1988,
the said term was required to be given a wide
interpretation and accordingly, imported the meaning
of a legal representative under subsection (11) of
Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which
reads as follows:

6. His submission is that if the definition under
subsection (11) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, is applied, any person who in law
represents the estate of the deceased person would
be a legal representative and include any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and
where a party sues or is sued in a different
character, the person on whom the estate devolves
on the death of the party so suing or sued. On that

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


basis, he submits that in terms of the decision in the
case of Montford Brothers (supra) the Mutt of
which the deceased was the Swamiji, the services of
the Swamiji having been denied on account of his
death, the Mutt was entitled to compensation on
account of loss dependency and the said Tribunal
could not have denied the same.

7. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company supports the order
passed by the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal
by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala
High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance
Company Limited vs. Mother Superior and
others reported in 1994 ACJ 673 held that the
successor of a Mutt is not a dependent upon the
deceased Swamiji because the Swamiji's life was
independent and as such, the Tribunal has rightly
rejected the compensation on account of loss of
dependency.

8. Heard Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel for the
appellant, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel
for the respondent-Insurance Company, perused the
papers.

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR



9. The short question that would arise for consideration
in the present matter is whether the Mutt or the
Successor of the Mathadipati would be a legal
representative on the death of the Mathadipati in a
road traffic accident entitling the Mutt for
compensation on account of loss of dependency?

10. The Tribunal, in our considered opinion, has fallen
into error in referring to the status of a Mathadipati
by holding that a Mathadipati belonging to a religious
order is an ascetic who severs all connections with
the members of his natural family, and that, as such,
there can be no dependency. The severance
considered by the Tribunal pertains only to the
material renunciation undertaken upon accepting an
ascetic life, and not to a complete disassociation in
all respects. In the present case, the person who
accepted the ascetic life continued to serve the needs
of the Mutt and discharged managerial duties in
respect of the said Mutt.

11. This aspect has been considered in depth by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Montford Brothers’s
case (supra). In the said decision, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court undertook a purposive interpretation
of the expression “legal representative” and held that

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


the term cannot be confined to heirs in the strict
sense of succession law. By invoking the inclusive
definition under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the Court emphasised that the expression
is designedly broad so as to encompass all persons
or entities who represent, in law or in fact, the estate
or interest of the deceased.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in clear and
unambiguous terms, held that the expression ‘legal
representative’ is of wide amplitude and includes not
only legal heirs but also those who represent the
estate of the deceased or on whom the estate
devolves.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that
where a person has renounced his material ties and
devoted himself to a religious order, the institution to
which he belongs cannot be said to be a stranger to
his estate or earnings, if such earnings or services
enure to the benefit of the institution.

14. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that the
concept of legal representation in compensation
jurisprudence is functional and not merely
genealogical.

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR



15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to hold that
even where a deceased had severed ties with his
biological family upon entering religious service, it
cannot be presumed that there are no dependants.
In such circumstances, the religious institution—
being the recipient of the fruits of his labour and
service, would stand in the position of a legal
representative and would be entitled to claim
compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereby
expanded the traditional understanding of
dependency to include institutional and economic
dependency, in addition to familial dependency.

16. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment applies with
greater force to the facts of the present case. The
deceased herein was a Mathadipati of Bale Honnur
Shrimad Rambapur Virsinhasan Mutt, Achaler, Taluk
Lohara, District Osmanabad. The position of a
Mathadipati is not that of an ordinary individual
earning for personal sustenance, but that of a
spiritual head whose role is integrally connected with
the functioning, administration, and continuity of the
Mutt.

17. It is a matter of settled understanding that upon
assuming the office of a Mathadipati, the individual

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


renounces personal ownership and material pursuits.
The offerings, income, and benefits associated with
the position are not appropriated for personal gain
but accrue to the Mutt as a religious and juristic
institution. The Mathadipati, therefore, acts not in his
individual capacity but as a custodian and
representative of the institution.

18. In such a framework, the economic relationship is
inverted from the conventional model. Instead of the
individual supporting dependants, it is the institution
that derives benefit from the individual’s position,
services, and spiritual authority. The dependency,
therefore, is institution-centric, and the loss
occasioned by the death of the Mathadipati is borne
by the institution in terms of disruption of leadership,
administration, and continuity of its activities.

19. The claim petition in the present case has been filed
by the claimant representing the Mutt and not in an
individual capacity. This distinction is of critical
importance. The compensation, if awarded, would
not enure to the benefit of any natural person,
including the successor Swamiji, who is likewise an
ascetic and bound by similar renunciatory principles.

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


The benefit would vest in the Mutt as a continuing
religious entity.

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.

22. The death of a Mathadipati results not merely in the
cessation of an individual life, but in a tangible
institutional loss, including:

22.1. loss of spiritual leadership,

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR



22.2. disruption of administrative continuity,

22.3. diminution in institutional efficacy, and

22.4. potential impact on offerings and institutional
income.

23. Such loss is neither speculative nor remote, but is a
direct consequence of the death and is therefore
compensable in law.

24. It must also be noted that the law of compensation,
particularly under the Motor Vehicles Act, is a
beneficial legislation, intended to provide just and
equitable relief. The interpretation of expressions
such as “legal representative” and “dependency”
must, therefore, be liberal and purposive, rather than
restrictive.

25. In light of the above, we are of the considered
opinion that:

25.1. the Mutt represents the estate and interest of
the deceased in a legal and functional sense;

25.2. the Mutt qualifies as a “legal representative”
within the meaning of law;

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR



25.3. the Mutt has suffered institutional and economic
loss on account of the death; and

25.4. the denial of compensation by the Tribunal is
contrary to settled legal principles.

26. The reasoning of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside. The claim for
compensation, including under the head of loss of
dependency, is maintainable at the instance of the
Mutt.

27. Insofar as the calculation of loss of dependency,
Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for
Insurance Company submits that there is no
document which had been produced by the appellant
before the Tribunal to establish the earning of the
diseased. Even if that were to be accepted, this Court
has consistently been following the application of the
notional salary fixed for the purpose of Lok Adalat by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

28. The accident having occurred in the year 2011, the
notional income was Rs.6,000/- per month, the
deceased being aged 65 years, the appropriate
multiplier would be ‘7’. Hence, Future prospects at
10% of notional income is to be added in terms of

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


decision in National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in AIR
2017 SC 5157 which comes to Rs.6,600/-. The
deceased being ascetic, there would be no
requirement for the awardal of loss of consortium.

29. In view of the decision, in Pranay Sethi’s , case
(supra), loss of estate could have been awarded at a
rate of Rs.15,000/- and not Rs.1,00,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, it has to be
reduced.

30. Though the claimant claimed that the deceased was
55 years at the time of death, as per the post
mortem report, Exhibit-P4, it is seen that at the time
of his death, he was 65 years, requiring a multiplier
of ‘7’ to be applied.

31. Loss of dependency is to be calculated as
Rs.6,600x7x12=5,54,400/-.

32. Insofar as the conventional heads are concerned, an
amount of Rs.15,000/- each is ordinarily awardable
towards loss of estate. However, in view of the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay
Sethi’s case (supra), the amounts under these
heads are required to be enhanced by 10% once in

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR


every three years, so as to offset inflation and
maintain the real value of compensation.

33. The said enhancement is not by way of simple
addition, but operates as a cumulative escalation,
i.e., each successive increase is applied on the
revised figure of the preceding block.

34. Accordingly, the base amount of Rs.15,000/- as fixed
in Pranay Sethi (2017) would stand enhanced as
per the correct cumulative recalculation up to 2026,
applying 10% enhancement every three years on a
compounding basis:
Base (2017): Rs.15,000/-
st
2020 (1 triennial increase): Rs.15,000 + 10% =
Rs.16,500/-
nd
2023 (2 triennial increase): Rs.16,500 + 10% =
Rs.18,150/-
rd
2026 (3 triennial increase): Rs.18,150 + 10% =
Rs.19,965/-

35. Similarly, insofar as the conventional heads of
funeral expenses which was fixed at Rs.15,000/- with
enhancement at 10% as indicated supra would come
to Rs.19,965/- in the year 2026.

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR




36. Thus, in view of the above, the comparative table of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and by this
Court is under:

37. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal is modified. The claimant is
entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,74,330/- with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization.

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2871-DB
MFA No. 200322 of 2024

HC-KAR



iii. The second respondent/insurance company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount
within a period of four weeks from date of the
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.



Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(TYAGARAJA N. INAVALLY)
JUDGE


VNR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8
Ct;VK