IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1597 OF 2021 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

MUNEERAIAH M., S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.14, RAMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 064.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ICICI LOMBARD GEN.INS.CO.,LTD., BY ITS MANAGER NO.69, 1^ST FLOOR Digi tally signed SVR COMPLEX by HOSUR MAIN ROAD ANNAPURNA G MADIWALA Location: H IGH BENGALURU-560 068.

COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. SURYAPRAKASH H.K., S/O KEMPAHANUMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, HYADALU, MYLANAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123.

BENGALURU RURAL.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 18.10.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 04.05.2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.54/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI- ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.05.2019 passed by the Member, MACT, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small causes, Bengaluru(for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.54/2017 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on

05.08.2016 at about 8.40 a.m., the petitioner was riding a vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04-EF-5319 on Kempenahalli road, met with an accident due to rash and negligent riding of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 52-J-9158 by its rider. As a result the petitioner sustained multiple injuries. He took treatment as in-patient in Sushrusha Nursing Home and underwent surgery and spent huge amount towards medical expenses. He has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 was the insurer and respondent No.2 was the owner of the offending motor cycle. Respondent No.1 has filed its written statement denying the contentions of the claim petitioner and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, it prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

6. The claimant to prove his case, examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 17 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-17. The respondent-Insurance Company has examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.R1 and R2.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, held that accident occured due to contributory negligence of rider of both the vehicles and assessed the negligence in the ratio of 35:65 and directed respondents to pay 65% of the compensation to the petitioner out of Rs.6,05,200/-.

8. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded the following amount of compensation:

The appellant being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded, has preferred this appeal, contending that the Tribunal has erroneously held that he had contributed to the extent of 35% towards causing the accident and amount of compensation awarded was inadequate.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer and perused records.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently submitted that under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is not necessary for determining the negligence of riders of the vehicles involved in the accident. It is suffice if a vehicle is involved in the accident, then the Tribunal has to assess the compensation and direct the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident to pay the compensation. In this case