IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101467 OF 2022 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SHRI RIYAJA S/O. DONGARISAB BAGAVAN, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BILAGI, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. MASTANSAB RAJESAB BAGAVAN, APMC ROAD, BEHIND BIDARI FACTORY, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASH FOR SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHRI SIDDANAGAOUDA S/O. BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, GIRIJA A. R/O. BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, BYAHATTI DIST: BAGALKOT.

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, OPP: FOREST OFFICE, BUS STAND ROAD GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1101/2019 BY THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK, IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF 1,96,000/- BY HOLDING 50% CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WITH 6% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION MAY BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING AS PRAYED FOR WITH 18%

INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

1. Heard Sri. Yash, who represents Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Sri. Shivanand Malashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to answer the claim and hence he has nothing more to submit.

2. This appeal is the outcome of the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi, sitting at Gokak in MVC No.1101/2019 dated

07.04.2021. This is a claimant's appeal.

3. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in total projecting a version that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2018 and the said accident solely occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor which is involved in the accident. The Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to an extent of 50% upon the appellant herein. Having held that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- as compensation, the Tribunal ordered respondents to pay 50% of the said amount i.e., Rs.1,96,000/-.

4. The appeal, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, is filed on two grounds. Firstly, the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and thus entire liability has to be fixed against the respondents herein. Secondly, the compensation granted is grossly low.

5. Arguing on the first ground, learned counsel for the appellant states that, due to negligence of the driver of the tractor alone the accident occurred, but without any basis the Tribunal held that the appellant is equally liable for the cause of accident.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellant was equally at fault. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunal basing on Exhibit P5 - sketch, came to a just conclusion that the appellant as well as the driver of the tractor which is involved in the accident are equally at fault and therefore the observations of the Tribunal on the aspect of negligence against both require no interference.

7. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant states that the spot sketch alone cannot form the basis to attribute contributory negligence. On the said aspect, learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Tr