IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4192 OF 2024 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

1. A PADMAVATHAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

2. AVULA PRAKASH REDDY, S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 3. A PRATHAP REDDY, S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1-309, EGUVA BUDIDA VEDU, DIGUVA BUDIDA VEDU, Digitally signed VYALPAD CHITTOR, by ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 237, PADMASHREE NOW IN BANGALORE.

SHEKHAR DESAI …APPELLANTS Location: High (BY SRI. RANGEGOWDA N R., ADVOCATE)

Court of Karnataka AND:

1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP BY IT'S MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, 2ND FLOOR, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

2. M/S LAKSHMI DEVI COMADA, C/O C. B. RAVINDRA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, NO.50/68, KOTAPETA, ROYACHOTI, KADAPA, PRODDATUR, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516 360.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O/D 06.02.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.28.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.5959/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, C/c. X ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-16), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 28.08.2023 passed in MVC No.5959/2019 on the file of the VIII Additional Judge and ACMM, C/c. X Additional SCJ and ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, for enhancing the compensation.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, one A.

Dwarakanatha Reddy, met with an accident on 05.09.2019 and died subsequently. His mother and brothers filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted a sum of Rs.17,24,141/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal and mainly contended that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal erred in taking his income at Rs.14,898/- per month. The Tribunal also fixed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 20%, though the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal failed to properly consider the same. The claimant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated that the deceased was crossing the road at a place where there was no zebra crossing on NH-71. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly considered the said fact and fixed contributory negligence at 20% and it is to be confirmed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that as the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, the contributory negligence fixed on him requires modification. He further stated that he is not disputing the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads.

6. The appellants/claimants examined an eyewitness and he stated that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Even in the cross-examination, the only suggestion made was that there was no zebra crossing at the place of the accident. The main contention of the respondents is that since the deceased was crossing NH-71 at a place where there was no zebra c