- 1 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3250/2017(MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMASWAMY, S/O MAHABALAIAH, AGED ABOUTT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIES & PUROHITHA, R/A JAVALLI, TUDU VILLAGE, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS A) SMT. KRISHNAVENI, S/O LATE SRI. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, B) MRS. UMA J R, D/O LATE SRI. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, C) MR. RAKSHIT J R, S/O LATE SRI. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 1(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDENTS OF R/A JAVALLI, TUDU VILLAGE, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVAN M., ADVOCATE FOR LR'S) AND: 1. MR. VENKATESH S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O RANJADAKATTE, - 2 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 DOORVASAPURA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK PIN CODE-577 432, (DRIVER OF THE DIVYA TRAVELS BUS) 2. MR. M.D. DIBIN, S/O M. M. VELSON, MAJOR, R/O SALGADI, THIRTHAHALLI TOWN, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT, (OWNER OF THE DIVYA TRAVEL BUS NO.KA-14-7713) 2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NO.4, 2ND FLOOR, M.G. PALACE GOPI CIRCLE, SHIMOGA CITY (POLICY NO.140608045965 VALID FROM 25.06.2011 TO 24.06.2012) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, V/O DATED 27.11.2017 NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 D/W) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.62/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AND ADDITIONAL M.A.C.T.-14, THIRTHAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against judgment and award dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and AMACT-14, Thirthahalli, in MVC No.62/2013. 2. The injured claimant filed a claim application, claiming compensation of Rs.12,60,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.46,000/- with interest from the date of petition till deposit. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred this appeal in which it is contended that the appellant-claimant was aged 52 years at the time of the accident. but the Tribunal erred in taking his age as 56 years. It is contended that the tribunal also taken the lesser percentage of disability and lesser amount of income while calculating loss of future income due to disability. C.W.1 who treated the claimant assessed the permanent disability of 9.2% to right upper limb and assessed the functional disability at 100%. The compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income during laid up period and the attendant charges, conveyance were granted - 4 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 less and therefore, requested for enhancement. It is further stated that this appeal restricted to Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. At the time of arguments, it is represented that the appellant-claimant died during the pendency of the appeal, and therefore, his wife and children were brought on the record, and hence, the wife of deceased claimant is entitled for the enhancement in the compensation in view of injuries to her husband, as in a death case. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company opposed the same and mainly contended that appeal is filed in the year 2017, but the appellant-claimant died on 19.01.2022. There is no nexus between the accident and the injuries. Therefore, requested for dismissing the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for both sides have relied upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4800 of 2021 (decided on 16.08.2021) in the case of The - 5 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs, Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon, wherein it was held as follows: “The Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. Section 166(1)(a) of the Act provides for a statutory claim for compensation arising out of an accident by the person who has sustained the injury. Under Clause (b), compensation is payable to the owner of the property. In case of death, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim. Property, under the Act, will have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition. If the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, we see no reason why the legal representatives cannot pursue claims for loss of property akin to estate of the injured if he is deceased subsequently for reasons other than attributable to the accident or injuries under Clause 1(c) of Section 166. The appellant has a statutory obligation to pay compensation in motor accident claim cases. This obligation cannot be evaded behind the defence that it was available only for personal injuries and abates on his death irrespective of the loss caused to the estate of the deceased because of the injuries.” 7. Learned counsel for respondent-Insurance company has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kannamma vs. Deputy General Manager reported in ILR 1990 KAR 4300, wherein it was held that the person who sustained bodily injuries dies during the pendency of the appeal, his L.Rs. can be brought on record and they are only entitled for the loss of the estate of the deceased person due to the bodily injury sustained in the accident. The learned counsel - 6 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 relied on another judgment of this Court in the case of Baburao Sataba Manabutakar, deceased by his LRs. Vs. Doreswamy and Others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 660, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of Court has held as under: “no action can survive to the estate of the deceased even with regard to the medical expenses and other consequential expenses if the deceased dies subsequently not as a result of the accident.” 8. The learned counsel for respondent-Insurance company has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haseena And Others Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another decided in Civil Appeal No.6621/2025, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, has held has under: “11. Merely by reason of the proximity of the accident and the death or the possibility of acute myocardial infarction occurring for reason of a long bed rest, it cannot be assumed, without clear evidence to substantiate the death having been caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident that the death occurred by reason of the accident.” 9. In the present case, the claimant Ramaswamy met with an accident on 25.11.2011 and filed claim petition in M.V.C. No.62 of 2013. The Tribunal granted compensation of - 7 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 R.46,000/- on 18.01.2016. Thereafter, he preferred the present appeal in the year 2017 and he died in the year 2022. Thereafter, legal representatives of deceased claimant were brought on record. The appellant-claimant sustained the following injuries as per wound certificate Ex.P.4: “lacerated wound on the left fore finger and abrasion on the right knee and deformity swelling on the right arm and the one injury is stated to be grevious in nature. 10. As per Ex.P.15 disability certificate, the appellant- claimant took treatment from 26.11.2011 to 24.12.2011 as an inpatient and later, as an outpatient. It was observed that he could not perform his duties for further 3 months. P.W.2 assessed disability to right upper limb as 9.2% and the whole body disability was taken as one third of it i.e. 3%. It is stated that the claimant was an agriculturist earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but he has not established his income and thus, the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.3,500/- per month. As he met with the accident on 25.11.2011, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal observed that he was used 56 years at the time of accident and taken the multiplier as 9. In the - 8 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 appeal, it is stated that he was aged 50 years, but no document is filed to prove his age as 50 years. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take his age as 56 years only. Therefore, loss of future income comes to Rs.21,060/- (6,500x12x9x3%). 11. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalisation, This Court finds it reasonable to grant Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- for loss of amentiies. An amount of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500x3) is granted for loss of income during the laid up period. The medical expenses granted at the rate of Rs.9,100/- needs no interference. This Court also finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.1,09,660/- as against Rs.46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Though, the LRs. of deceased appellant stated that the appellant-claimant died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The nature of injuries sustained by him way back in the year 2011 shall not definitely lead to his death on 09.01.2022 and it is for LRs of claimant to establish the nexus between the injury sustained by the claimant and the death of - 9 - MFA No.3250 of 2017 the victim and they failed to do so. Moreover, they have not amended their appeal grounds and not claimed any compensation under the said heads. Therefore, this court finds that the question of treating it as a case of death, does not arise. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The total compensation is enhanced from Rs.46,000/- to Rs.1,09,660/-. The petitioner-claimant (wife of deceased) is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,09,660/- with interest at 6 percent per annum from date of petition till deposit. The respondent – insurance company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, as the petitioners 2 and 3 are major children, they are not entitled for compensation and hence, the first petitioner -wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS