IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6304 OF 2024 (MV-I)

BETWEEN: GOWTHAM S/O. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22, VADDARAPALYA, BENGALURU.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAIAH A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. PRAKASH S/O. SRI. NALLURAPPA NEAR BEERESHWARA TEMPLE, ANEKAL MAIN ROAD, ATTIBELE, Digitally signed BANGALORE - 562 107.

by PADMASHR EE SHEKHAR DESAI

2. THE MANAGER, Location: High IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Court of Karnataka CSC-141, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 141, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 048.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.4513/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-25), 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 MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 05.06.2024 passed in MVC No.4513/2020 on the file of the XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-25), for enhancing the compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The petitioner/injured claimant met with an accident on 24.11.2020 and filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.24,47,946/-. But it fixed up the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner at 10% and on the driver of the car at 90% and directed both the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.22,03,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

4. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening

10% contributory negligence on the petitioner. The petitioner was doing loading and unloading work and was earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the driver of the offending car, without giving any indication or signal, suddenly turned the vehicle towards the right side. As a result, the appellant, who was riding the motorcycle behind the car, dashed against it. The charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The compensation awarded under the other heads is meagre. The petitioner/injured examined PW.4- Neurosurgeon and PW.3-Orthopedic Surgeon, who have suggested another surgery for removal of the implants, the cost of which is estimated at Rs.30,000/-. But the Tribunal has granted only Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.

Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

5. The manner of accident shows while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-ER-5691 reached near NH-7, Yadavanahalli, driver of a car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MN-2733 driven it in rash and negligent manner and suddenly turned his vehicle towards right side without any indication or signal, hence the petitioner hit the car from behind. In the cross-examination of the petitioner, he admitted that there was 20 feet distance between car and bike he fell down due to skid on sand. As per Ex.P.9 and evidence of RW.1, the petitioner was under influence of alcohol. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed 10% contributory negligence on his part and it is confirmed.

6. Though it i