IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.136 OF 2024 (MV-I)

BETWEEN: MUBARAK S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A ISLAMPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562123 …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAGHU R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE MANAGER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M HDFC ERGO GEN INSURANCE CO. LTD.

No.25/1, 2^ND FLOOR, BUILDING No.2 Location: HIGH COURT OF SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING KARNATAKA M G ROAD BENGALURU – 560001

2. KESHAVA MURTHY M C S/O CHIKKAKEMPAIAH MINNAPURA, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O DT.12.03.26, NOTICE TO R2 D/W)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.4572/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT AND Court OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 04.10.2023 passed in MVC No.4572/2020 on the file of the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru and seek for enhancement of compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The appellant/claimant met with an accident on

26.09.2020 and filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.4,10,373/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contented that the Tribunal committed an error in deducting 15% of the compensation amount towards contributory negligence of the appellant in fact the appellant was a pedestrian as such he has not contributed negligence in occurrence of the accident and FIR and charge-sheet have been filed against the driver of the Canter lorry. Therefore, contributory negligence against the appellant is to be set aside. The appellant was doing coolie work and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the accident, the appellant has sustained amputation of right 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th toe and suffered permanent disability and unable to do coolie work. But the Tribunal committed an error in considering the whole body disability at 12% instead of 100% as the appellant has sustained degloving injury of the right foot with fracture and 2^nd and 5^th metatarsal with 3^rd and 4^th right proximal phalanx fracture for which he underwent surgery and amputation of 2^nd to 5^th toe and it caused functional disability at 100%. The Tribunal has not considered the future prospectus while calculating the loss of future income. In all, the Tribunal has granted meager amount on the conventional heads. Thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation.

5. Heard the arguments of both the sides. The case of the appellant that on 26.09.2020, he was going to graze the cow by walk on the left side mud portion of Tumkuru – Bengaluru road near T Bagur Bharath petrol bunk. At that time, the driver of the Canter lorry bearing Reg. No.KA01-D- 7972 came at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant. As a result, the appellant sustained the grievous injuries.

6. In paragraph 13, the Tribunal observed that the appellant has not produced the rough sketch for the reason known to him. If the spot mahazar is perused, the width of the road at the spot of accident is nearly 24 feet and the spot of accident is at a distance of nearly 4 feet from the left edge of Tumakuru-Bengaluru road and there is 20 feet width road left on the right side of the road. It means that the appellant while crossing the road, has met with an accident. Tribunal observed that petitioner being