- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5775 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA W/O LATE L.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SRI. K. SRINATH S/O LATE L. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. SRI. K. SATISH S/O LATE L.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. SRI. K. MOHAN S/O LATE L.KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT NO.80, JYOTHINAGAR, MEDIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 049. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. ARASAIAH FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT NO.54, 10TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGAR, UNIVERSITY POST, R Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 ULLAL MAIN ROAD-560 056. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.60/4, ENVIRON TOWERS, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE-560 100 REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VK NOT FILED), R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.7181/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE,(SCCH-15), DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 4.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 23.04.2015 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.7181 of 2011. 2. One L. Krishnamurthy met with an accident on 22.08.2011 and initially, he filed claim application claiming - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. During the pendency of the proceedings, Krishnamurthy died on 18.05.2012 and his wife and children were brought on record as his legal heirs. As the petitioner- claimants failed to prove that there was nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the death of Krishnamurthy occurred on 18.05.2012, the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred this appeal and mainly contended that P.W.2-medical officer treated Krishnamurthy on 22.08.2011 and stated that he treated Krishnamurthy as inpatient at Asha Nursing home from 22.08.2011 to 29.08.2011 and thereafter, he was taken to NIMHANS hospital for treatment. He was further treated as an inpatient at Chaitanya Medical Centre, Hoskote from 01.10.2011 to 31.10.2011 and from 02.12.2011 to 21.12.2011. Later, he was shifted to Vydehi institute of medical science and treated from 17.04.2012 to 19.04.2012. As he sustained spinal cord injury, he did not recover and he has no control over bowl and bladder, no sensation below waist and he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 was in vegetative state. He was taken to Sri Venkateshwara Hospital and treated as inpatient from 24.04.2012 to 07.05.2012 and there was no improvement. On 18.05.2012, Krishnamurthy succumbed to the injuries. P.W.2 further stated that the cause of death was due to accidental injuries suffered by Krishnamurthy. There was nexus between injuries suffered in the accident and death. Injured was under continuous treatment from the date of accident till his death. He was discharged on 07.05.2012 without any improvement and died within 10 days on 18.05.2012 and he was not suffering from any other ailment. It is further stated by appellant-claimants that they incurred Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses of Krishnamurthy and they are also entitled for compensation towards nourishment of food, attendant charges and conveyance expenses during the treatment, and thus, requested for modification of the order of the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-insurance company has stated that the appellant-claimants have not filed any medical record to show that the deceased Krishnamurthy has taken treatment continuously in different hospitals as stated by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 them. Even when Krishnamurthy was admitted in the hospital from 24.04.2012 to 07.05.2012, he was admitted for fever and vomiting, and thus, the claimants failed to prove that Krishnamurthy died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application. At the best, the claimants are only entitled for medical expenses incurred by them. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both parties. 6. Krishnamurthy was aged 70 years at the time of accident. While he was standing by the side of the road for crossing the road on 22.08.2011, driver of the canter bearing registration No.PY-01-C-0597 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. As a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and shifted to the Government Hospital at K. R. Puram. After first aid, he was shifted to NIMHANS hospital. From there, he was referred to Asha Nursing Home, Hoskote, and he underwent surgery. Even after discharge, he took follow-up treatment. He became bed ridden and died on 18.05.2012. It is stated that Krishnamurthy was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 doing business of provision store and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. After his death, his wife and children were impleaded as legal heirs in the claim application. 7. The main issue before this Court is, whether the appellant-claimants proved that Krishnamurthy underwent continuous treatment from the date of accident till death and there is any nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and his death? 8. The Tribunal observed that claimants have not filed any documents to show that Krishnamurthy was inpatient in Asha Nursing Home and also took treatment in NIMHANS hospital and then, in Chaitanya Medical Centre, Hoskote. As per Exhibit P14 case sheet, Krishnamurthy took treatment from 24.04.2012 to 07.05.2012 and as per the said document, the condition of the patient was shown as satisfactory. There is no medical finding for the death of Krishnamurty. The claimants have not produced any documents to show that Krishnamurthy took treatment in various hospitals. Even after the death, claimants have not taken any steps to give information to the police about the death and have not taken any steps for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 conducting post mortem. It is further observed by the Tribunal that P.W.2 is not a treated doctor and Dr. Praveen has treated Krishnamurthy. Exhibit P8 is the death certificate. Thus, the Tribunal held that there was no nexus between the injury sustained in the accident and death, and accordingly dismissed the application. 9. The Learned counsel of the appellants have relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal Alias Dhanraj (Dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. Nasir Khan and others, decided in C.A. No.2159 of 2024 on 26.09.2025, wherein it was held as under: 6. The answer is simple and clear in so far as the insertion of sub-section (5) to Section 167 by Act 32 of 2019 with effect from 01.04.2022, which reads as under: "[(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of a person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.]" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 7. The right to claim compensation for the injuries caused in a motor vehicle accident hence survives on the legal representatives of the injured even if the injured dies in the course of the proceedings for reasons not relatable to or having any nexus with the injuries sustained. Here the injured died in 2024, after the insertion to Section 166 by amendment. We also have a difference of opinion with the declaration of law in Bhagwati Bai2 which we need not dilate upon in the facts of this case where the inserted provision is squarely applicable. 8. The finding in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon4(supra) and Meena3(supra) we extract from paragraph 5 of the latter decision which reads as follows:- "5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the claimants relied on Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon to impress upon us that despite the death of the injured, the legal representatives of the deceased can pursue the claim since the property under the Act would have a much wider connotation than the conventional definition and would include the estate left behind by the deceased. It was held that if the legal heirs can pursue claims in case of death, there is no reason to prohibit the legal representatives to pursue claims for loss of a property, akin to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 estate of the injured, if the injured dies subsequently. We see, absolutely no reason to differ from the declaration of law and the insurer also raises no objection on the same. We would consider the enhancement sought by the original applicant, which if granted before her death would have accrued to her estate or rather compensated the loss of her estate; caused by reason of the accident, which the legal heirs are entitled to succeed to." 10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- claimants that even if the claimants failed to prove that injured died due to the injury sustained in the accident, the legal heirs are entitled for compensation as per the amendment to Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, the said amendment came into effect from 01.04.2022, and in this case, Krishnamurthy met with an accident in the year 2011 and died in 2012, i.e. after 8 months. Therefore, the said argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. 11. P.W.1 is the son of Krishnamurthy. In his chief affidavit, P.W.1 has stated regarding the treatment provided to Krishnamurthy in various hospitals as mentioned above with dates. The claimants also examined P.W.2-doctor who is the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 Managing Director of Sri Venkateshwara Hospital. P.W.2 has stated as follows: “Krishnamurthy aged about 75 years, was admitted to our Hospital, Vide I.P.No.7120 with an history of Altered Sensorium, for 4 days, MRI was taken which revealed C5-6 disc degeneration. He was treated conservatively on medical lines by our Neuro Physician Dr. Praveen. In spite of treatment, care, the patient fail to improve, he was discharged on request. After detailed discussion with the patient son about the limitations of medical treatment and usele+ssness of continuing treatment and also considering raising treatment expenditure, the patient was discharged on 07.05.2012.” 12. Exhibit P4 is the wound certificate which shows that Krishnamurthy met with an accident on 22.08.2011 at about 12.15 p.m. with the following injuries: 1. Sluggished movement of both the lower limbs. 2. Difficulty to pass he urine, so that catheterisation done. 13. Krishnamurthy was referred to NIMHANS hospital for further follow-up and it was also mentioned that the injuries are grievous in nature. As per the discharge summary issued - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 by Asha Nursing Home, he was admitted from 22.08.2011 to 29.08.2011 and referred to major hospitals for further investigation. Catheterization was to be done once in every 15 days. Prescription given by Chaitanya Medical Centre dated 17.04.2012 was filed under Exhibit P6, in which it was held that Krishnamurthy met with an accident about one year back, suffered injury to the buck, lost control of urination and catheterisation was done for about six months and admission was also done in major hospitals under neurological care Discharge form of Sri Venkateshwara Hospital was also filed under Exhibit P7 wherein it was stated that Krishnamurthy was admitted in the said hospital from 24.04.2012 to 07.05.2012 and he was treated conservatively and his condition was mentioned in it as not satisfactory. It appears that the word ‘not’ was inserted subsequently. Exhibit P8 is the death certificate. They have also filed inpatient detail bills issued by Sri Venkateshwara Hospital, Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, NIMHANS, Chaitanya Medical Centre and St. John’s Medical College Hospital. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 14. Perusal of the aforementioned documents and the nature of the injuries sustained by Krishnamurthy, shows that he was aged 70 years when he met with an accident. He was treated continuously in different hospitals. Even as per the evidence of P.W.2, Krishnamurthy was not responding to medication, he was discharged on request, and within 10 days after the discharge, he died. The cases under Motor Vehicles Act are to be dealt with in a summary manner. No strict proof of evidence is required. The court has to evaluate the material evidence and arrive to the just conclusion. 15. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the accident. Krishnamurthy was aged 70 years at the time of the accident and sustained grievous injuries. Though he was treated in different hospitals for a period of 8 months, he could not recover and his condition was deteriorated day by day and finally, he died on 18.05.2012. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal that there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the victim, is not on proper appreciation of facts. 16. The argument of the learned counsel for respondent is that the claimants have not taken any steps to inform the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 Investigating Officer about death of Krishnamurthy and not taken any steps for post mortem done. Merely, because the claimants failed to take necessary steps, either to inform the Investigating Officer or to get post mortem done, it cannot be stated that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the death. As the claimants are illiterates, they were not aware of the legal formalities required. 17. Though it is stated that Krishnamurthy was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, they have not filed any proof of income. As Krishnamurthy was aged 70 years at the time of accident in the year 2011, this Court finds it reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.6,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and the relevant multiplier is 5. As Krishnamurthy was aged 70 years, claimants are not entitled for future prospects. There are 4 dependants, one fourth is to be deducted towards personal expenses of Krishnamurthy as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1. Thus, the loss of dependency comes 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 to Rs.2,92,500/- (6,500 - ¼ x 12 x 5). First appellant is wife of the deceased and she is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- by each of them towards parental consortium as per the citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others2, and in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others3, The claimants are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the conventional heads as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi4. It is stated that the claimants have produced medical bills to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- as per Exhibit P9 and therefore, they are entitled for the said amount towards medical expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.6,82,500/- with 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 3 (2020) 9 SCC 644 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. 18. The award of compensation passed by this Court under different heads is stated as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Loss of Dependency 2,92,500/- 2. Loss of Consortium 1,60,000/- 3. Towards conventional heads 30,000/- 4. Medical expenses 2,00,000/- Total 6,82,500/- 19. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The appellant-claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.6,82,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to deposit the total compensation of Rs.6,82,500/- with interest at 6% per annum within one month from the date of this order. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27301 MFA No. 5775 of 2016 (iv) Since appellant Nos.2 to 4 are major sons of Krishnamurthy, they are not entitled for any compensation. Therefore, on such deposit of compensation by the insurance company, appellant No.1-wife of Krishnamurthy alone is entitled for the total compensation and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70