- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2551/2020 (MV-D) BETWEEN: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SM TOWERS, II FLOOR 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE. NOW REP. ITS MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD BENGALURU-01 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV.,) AND: MAHADEVA S/O APPANASHETTI DEAD BY LR'S. 1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O MAHADEVA NOW AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LR'S RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE LR'S OF RESPONDENT NO.1. 2. SUDHA D/O LATE MAHADEVA Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 3. SUDHAKARA S/O LATE MAHADEVA NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. NO.346 MACHOHALLI COLONY MACHOHALLI, BAPAGRAMMA BANGALORE NORTH-560091. 4. GIRIJAMMA BEHIND SHANESHWAR TEMPLE NEAR KEMPEGOWDA SCHOOL VRUSHABAVATHI NAGAR BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.K. BHAT, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 V/O/DTD:27.07.2023 R2, R3 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R1 R4 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2029/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVIII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU SCCH-4, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 12,73,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the judgment and award dated 25.10.2019 passed in MVC.No.2029/2015 by the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bengaluru City, (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri.Ashoka N. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in determining compensation by treating the case as a case of death arising out of a road accident. It is submitted that one Sri.Mahadeva had met with a road accident and sustained injuries, provided treatment and subsequently filed a claim petition seeking compensation. However, during the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 pendency of the claim petition, the injured died on 13.03.2018 and there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased in a road accident and his death. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, ignoring the fact that there is a gap of nearly 4 years between the date of accident and the death, treated the case as a case of death due to the accident and awarded exorbitant compensation. Hence, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. It is also submitted that the respondents/claimants failed to produce any evidence regarding the income of the deceased. It is contended that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month which is required to be reassessed appropriately by allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.A.K.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal by a well-reasoned order in paragraph Nos.20 to 22, has recorded detailed reasons - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 with regard to the nexus between the injuries sustained by Sri.Mahadeva and his death with specific reference to the evidence of the doctor/PW1. It is submitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased in the road accident dated 13.12.2014 were subsisting, as the injuries suffered by him were the head injuries, his mental faculty had gone down and he was bed ridden. It is also submitted that the doctor, who assessed him on 08.08.2017 has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that there is a clear nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the death of Sri.Mahadeva. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The appellant as well as the respondents/claimants are not in dispute that one Sri.Mahadeva met with a road accident on 13.12.2014. He was provided treatment at Sri.Lakshmi Multi-Specialty - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 Hospital and thereafter at NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru, where he was an inpatient from 14.12.2014 to 17.12.2014. Subsequently, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital and was admitted from 17.12.2014 to 19.12.2014 and thereafter, he was shifted to Panacea Hospital, Basaveshwarnagar, where he remained as an inpatient from 19.12.2014 to 24.12.2014. The records indicate that Sri.Mahadeva sustained head injuries, including injury over the bone, deep laceration over the right parental region. The records also indicate that the injured Sri.Mahadeva died on 13.03.2018. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that there is no nexus between the death of Sri.Mahadeva and the road traffic accident. The Tribunal, while considering the said contention has recorded detailed finding in paragraph Nos.20 to 21 of its judgment. 7. I have perused the oral evidence of PW1 and the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It is to be noticed that PW1 has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 IQ level of the injured/deceased was found to be 15 which is deficit to the extent of 100% cognitive disability. It is further deposed that she has examined the injured on 08.08.2017 and family members reported that due to the injuries suffered by the deceased in a road accident, his behavioural pattern had substantially changed, he was aggressive, verbal and had physical anger outburst, increased irrelevant activities and talks, not recognizing the people and disoriented with respect to time, place and person. A perusal of Ex.P10 – the Neuropsychological assessment report, clearly indicates that these activities of the injured relating to his brain functioning is based on the assessment pertaining to road traffic accident. The said witness was cross-examined at length by the Insurance Company, wherein the witness has withstood the cross- examination and was clear in her evidence that there is a clear nexus between the accidental injuries and death of Sri.Mahadeva. Taking into consideration the expert opinion, the Tribunal has recorded the clear finding and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 negated the contention of the appellant regarding the absence of nexus between the death and the road accident. The evidence of PW1 is very clear that due to cognitive disability arising from the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the death was caused. 8. In view of the aforesaid categorical statement of the doctor, this Court has no other evidence to disbelieve the same. I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In my considered view, the said findings are strictly in consonance with the evidence of PW1, who is a Professor of Neuropsychology at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant with regard to the absence of nexus between the road accident and the death of Sri.Mahadeva has no merit and stands rejected. 9. Insofar as a quantum of compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the respondents have failed to produce any proof of income. However, in the absence of any such proof, it would be appropriate to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 reassess the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.8,500/- per month by placing reliance on the notional income chart prepared by KSLSA. Having reassessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8,500/- per month and considering the age of the deceased as 52 years, the appellants-claimants are further entitled to an addition of 10% of the assessed income under the head of loss of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others1. The appellants-claimants being the wife and children of the deceased are three in number. Hence, the appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be one-third and as the deceased was aged about 52 years, the appropriate multiplier would be 11, which the tribunal has rightly assessed. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is required to be reassessed. Hence, 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 the appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation towards loss of dependency as under: 8,500/- + 10% x 12 x 11 - 1/3rd = Rs.8,22,800/- 10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the head of medical expenses is unaltered. The appellants-claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- under the head of ‘funeral expenses & transportation of dead body’. The appellants-claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. 11. Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to modified compensation under the following heads: HEADS AMOUNT (in Rs.) Loss of dependency 8,22,800/- Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000 X 3) 1,20,000/- Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses 15,000/- Loss of estate 15,000/- Medical expenses 1,55,000/- Total 11,27,800/- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,27,800/- as against Rs.12,73,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a) Appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to an extent that the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,27,800/- as against Rs.12,73,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. c) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. d) The Insurance Company shall deposit the modified compensation amount with - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18565 M.F.A. No.2551/2020 accrued interest before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. e) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. f) The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith. g) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11