Motor accident claims not limited to family; institutions relying on deceased can also claim compensation: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently held that religious institutions can claim compensation for the death of their head in a road accident.

A Bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and Tyagaraja N Inavally said that “dependency” under the motor accident compensation law is not limited to biological family members and can include institutions that rely on the deceased.

Therefore, the Court awarded ₹5.94 lakh as compensation to the Mutt headed by Sutreshwar Shivacharya Swamiji, who died in a road accident.

The Court opined that the head of a Mutt does not act in a personal capacity but as a representative of the institution. It added that the institution benefited from his role and services and that his death resulted in loss of leadership, administration and overall functioning.

“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,” the Court observed.

The case arose from a 2011 road accident in which the head of the Mutt was travelling in a jeep when it collided head-on with a truck leading to his death.

A representative of the Mutt (claimant) moved the High Court challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)’s order, which had granted compensation of ₹1.2 lakh towards loss of estate and funeral expenses but denied compensation under the head of loss of dependency on the ground that the deceased had no family dependents.

Before the High Court, counsel for the claimant argued that since the deceased was serving the Mutt, the institution suffered a loss of his services and was therefore, entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

On the other hand, the insurance company contended that the successor of a Mutt could not be treated as a dependent, as the Swamiji led an independent ascetic life.

The High Court held that the MACT had adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of dependency by confining it to familial relationships. It noted that compensation law has evolved to recognise not only familial but also economic and functional dependence.

“The error of the Tribunal lies in equating dependency exclusively with familial dependency and overlooking institutional dependency,” the Court added.

It further held that this approach was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Montford Brothers of St. Gabriel v. United India Insurance Co., which recognises that the expression “legal representative” must be interpreted broadly to advance the object of compensation law.

In view of the above, the Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the MACT's award. It said that the representative of the Mutt would be entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹4,74,330 along with 6% interest from the date of the petition till realisation.

The insurance company was directed to deposit the amount within four weeks.

Advocate Krupa Sagar Patil appeared for the claimant.

Advocate Preeti Patil Melkundi appeared for the insurance company.

[Read Judgment]