HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5002 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: PADMAMMA DEAD BY LR’S 1. LOKESH S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT HARIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TQ MYSURU DISTRICT 2. H.L. DHANANJAYA S/O LOKESH AGE 39 YEARS R/AT D.NO.103/1, KOORGALLI VILLAGE BELWADI POST, MYSURU DISTRICT 3. SMT. PUTTASUMITHRA W/O LAKSHMANEGOWDA D/O LOKESH AGE 37 YEARS, ANAGODU HOBLI HUNSUR TQ, MYSURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O MANCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT 43 DODDEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, HUNSUR TQ, MYSURU DISTRICT. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 2 - 2. THE MANAGER SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD E-8, EPIP, SEETHAPURA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 07.06.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.27.06.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.397/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, PRL. SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking to challenge Judgment and Award dated 27.06.2019 in MVC No.397/2016 passed by the Judge, Principal Court of Small Causes, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”]. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 3 - 2. By the Impugned Award, the appellants/claimants have been awarded a compensation of Rs.3,46,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and respondent No.2/ Insurance Company has been held as liable to pay the amount awarded. The challenge in the present appeal has been made by the appellants/claimants seeking an enhancement of the amounts awarded. 3. This Court on 21.01.2026, after hearing the parties passed the following directions: “2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellant Nos.2 and 3 –Smt. Padamamma was injured in an accident that had occurred on 14.02.2016, while she was travelling in a vehicle called Tata Magic bearing registration No.KA-09/4865, being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, on the Hassan- Mysuru Main Road, when the driver of the vehicle lost control and the vehicle turtled. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that within six months of the date of the accident, the injured Smt. Padamamma passed away, after being discharged from the Hospital. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the injuries were correctly recorded, however, the Tribunal has failed to grant adequate compensation. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 4 - 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Doctor (PW-2), in his evidence, stated that he did not know the reasons for the death of the deceased and that there was no nexus between the injuries and the death. 6. The evidence of the Doctor (PW-2), however, is in vernacular language.” 4. The brief facts in the case are that the deceased that on 14.02.2016 at about 5.00 pm, appellant/claimant was returning from K.Hosalli Village in a Tata Magic bearing registration No.KA-09-B-4865, the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed on the Hassan-Mysuru road and the driver lost control and the vehicle turned turtle. Due to the accident, the appellant as well all passengers in the vehicle also sustained injuries. The appellant/claimant was originally hospitalized for a period of 4 days. The claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.44,00,000/-. The claim petition was contested by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company alone. The respondent No.1-owner/driver of the vehicle did not file any objections. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 5 - 5. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the Petitioner proves that on 14.2.2016 at about 5.00 P.M. near Maramanti Forest on Hassan- Mysuru main road, when she was traveling in TATA Magic vehicle bearing registration No.KA-09-B-4865, at that time the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a high speed with rash and negligent manner, lost his control and turtle, due to that she sustained injuies? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? 3. What Order or award?” 6. The evidence was led by the appellants. The petitioner No.1(b)/son of the appellant was examined as PW.1. The respondents did not lead any evidence. 7. The learned Tribunal after examining the documents produced by the appellants/claimants including the copy which were marked as Exs.P1 to P19 and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,46,000/- along with interest. The learned Tribunal however awarded only medical expenses in a sum of Rs.3,46,000/-. 8. As stated above, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that since the accident HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 6 - resulted in the death of the injured, the award should have been enhanced. He seeks to rely upon the evidence of the PW.2-the Doctor produced before this Court states that she may have suffered mentally due to the injuries. In addition, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that no award has been granted for filial consortium and other non-peculiar heads. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company on the other hand submits that as recorded by the learned Tribunal, in the Impugned Award, there was no nexus between the injuries caused and the death even in terms of the evidence of the Doctor. 10. This Court had examined the translated copies of the evidence of PW.2. The Doctor who treated the appellant/ claimant, in his examination has set out that the left hand of the appellant was amputated and that the appellant/ claimant also sustained injuries to the face and the right hand and these injuries could be stated to be grievous in nature. However, he also states that the appellant was HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 7 - hospitalized for 04 days. PW.2 also states that he is not aware of the reason for the death of the injured/deceased, in his cross-examination. The relevant extract is below: ”In connection with this case, in the accident, the right and left elbow, Clavical and Spine bones of the petitioner Padmamma were fractured, injury has been caused to the face. She has availed treatment in our hospital for the same, the left hand has been amputated. Operation has been conducted to the injuries caused to the face and right hand, the said injured has sustained injuries of grievous in nature. The injured has availed treatment in our hospital as inpatient for about 4 days and discharged, thereafter she availed treatment as out patient. Thereafter, her relatives informed that she has expired. Injury to hand was cured. But there was a problem in connection with Nerves, she might have suffered mentally due to the said injuries. It has not come to our notice for having conducted the P.M. But, it cannot be said that for what reason she died.” [Emphasis supplied] 11. In his cross examination, PW.2 has set out that she was discharged from the hospital and availed of follow-up treatment 5 to 6 times. However, after 6 months of her discharge, he was informed that she has passed away. The Doctor further has deposed that the injuries sustained are not life-threatening and he does not know why she died. The relevant extract is below: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 8 - “It is correct to suggest that, when she was discharged from out hospital, injuries were healing. After the discharge she was availed follow-up treatment for about 5-6 times. after the lapse of 06 months of discharge, the son of the injured came and informed that the petitioner is dead. I do not know that when the petitioner died she was in the house or in the hospital. it is correct to suggest that, the injuries sustained by the petitioner are not life-threatening. I have no knowledge for what reason she died. to a suggestion that there is no connection in between her death and injuries sustained due to accident, witness states that when the injuries of grievous in nature caused, there is a possibility of dying due to depression.” [Emphasis supplied] 12. Concededly the witness has deposed that the injuries were not life threatening and that he has no knowledge of cause of her death. The injured was also hospitalized only for 4 days and then, thereafter discharged and did some follow-up treatment. The learned Tribunal has found that there is no nexus between the injury and the death. The evidence of the Doctor does not establish such nexus either. Thus, on this account, this Court is unable to disagree with the findings of the learned Tribunal. 13. However, no amounts have been awarded towards ‘loss of filial consortium’ and also for ‘loss of estate’ and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 9 - ‘funeral expenses’. Since there were three dependents, in terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2 cases, the award would be Rs.40,000/- for each at totaling to Rs.1,20,000/-, also ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ would be at Rs.15,000/- each. Accordingly, an enhanced sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is to be awarded to the appellants. 14. Since the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,46,000/- as compensation, the appellants/claimants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,96,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 15. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions: 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 10 - ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 27.06.2019 in MVC No.397/2016 passed by the Judge, Principal Court of Small Causes, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mysuru is modified to the extent that the appellants/claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.3,46,000/- that which has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of eight weeks. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8415 MFA No. 5002 of 2020 - 11 - (v) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal within a week. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. (viii) The appellants are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings to withdraw the enhanced amount once deposited. (ix) No order as to costs. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA