The Supreme Court holds that the Legal Representatives are liable only for monetary liabilities attached to the estate of the deceased but not for his personal obligations.

The Supreme Court has disposed of an appeal arising out of consumer dispute, while observing that the legal representatives are not liable to discharge the party's obligation which had to be discharged in a personal capacity.

 
The Supreme Court observed that 

"In the case of a personal obligation imposed on a person under the contract and on the demise of such person, his estate does not become liable and therefore, the legal representatives who represent the estate of a deceased would obviously not be liable and cannot be directed to discharge the contractual obligations of the deceased.

The parties entered into a Development Agreement with respect to a property which agreement was violated by the developer and the matter came to be adjudged by the District Consumer Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission. All the three forums had held the developer liable for deficiency in service and had fixed his liability. However, during the pendency of the review application before the National Commission the developer passed away. Now the legal representatives of the Developer contended that they were monetarily liable for any deficiency however for the personal obligations of the developer they could not be held liable as they did not possess the skills and know how to complete the project.

The National Commission however reasoned that the legal representatives of the Developer were liable both with regard to the monetary payments that the Developer was directed to pay and also liable to comply with the other directions issued by the District Forum as modified by the State Commission and thereafter modified by the National Commission.

Before the Supreme Court the Ld. Counsel for the appellants contended that the aforesaid directions cannot now be complied with by the legal representatives of the deceased – Developer inasmuch as those were personal directions. He contended that the Developer was having the proprietorship concern and therefore, the estate of the deceased proprietor would be liable insofar as the satisfaction of the compensatory payments only but not for complying with the other directions issued which cannot now fall on his legal representatives to comply.

It was contended that the Developer had skills and expertise to comply with the said directions as a developer but on his demise, his legal representatives, namely, his widow and two sons, cannot be compelled to carry out those directions as they neither possess the necessary skills nor expertise and further, they are not continuing the proprietorship concern of the original opposite party which has now been wound up on the demise of the sole proprietor. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants-opposite party contended that the various clauses of the Development Agreement which had placed duties and obligations on the Developer, who is since deceased, cannot now be enforced against and performed by his legal representatives or heirs.
 
The Supreme Court held thus:

“Therefore, if the estate of the deceased becomes liable then the legal representatives who in law represent the estate of a deceased person or 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 is liable to the extent the estate has devolved. Hence, what is crucial is that the estate of a deceased person becomes liable and the legal representatives must discharge their liability to a decree holder or a person who has been granted an order to recover from the estate of the deceased which they would represent and not beyond it. But in the case of a personal obligation imposed on a person under the contract and on the demise of such person, his estate does not become liable and therefore, the legal representatives who represent the estate of a deceased would obviously not be liable and cannot be directed to discharge the contractual obligations of the deceased.”

Vinayak Purushottam Dube (D) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat