I am sorry I missed your quote (somehow did not get a notification of same) amongst the useless rants flying off here, so delayed response.
My indication is that there is a deliberate targeting using guided munition to limit collateral damages. However, due to the density of population on either side, the inadvertent civil casualties do occur.
And yes, broadly speaking, you are right.
As you are aware, there are alternate sites for any post/bunkers. With what I know of PA bunkers and IA bunkers, the probability of sure kills is lesser than injuries (both grievous/non-grievous), hence the figures of kills may usually be exaggerated.
But we have the Comptroller of Defence Accounts giving terminal benefits to the Next of Kin of KIAs and the respective State Governments doing the same too. Hence, on Indian side, any KIA is very difficult to hide, hence the Army will give out it's casualty figures, maybe in a gap, as either way, everything is in public domain and comes out sooner than later.
So, if you come to know that IA has admitted loss of four soldiers, you can take it to be true. Rest, read as the typical propaganda either side indulges in.
In the post Uri scenario, there have been significant casualties on either side, but the ratio of firepower being used to actual casualties, is surprisingly poor. Additionally, most of the casualties (almost 85-90%) in post-Uri LC duels, have been in the injured categories, due to better survivability due to better protection provided by alternate sites/defensive structures.
On either side, the concretised bunkers with Steel reinforced plates on top and over 18-24 inches sand/sandbags, can ensure 100% survivability of the troops inside in direct hit by 155 mm shell too. But, an ATGM which is able to enter through the fire slit, will achieve a kill rate.
Hence, when people here talk of casualties, one has to understand the volume of firepower that must have been poured over it, to achieve it.