- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23031 M.F.A. No.9072/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9072/2019 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. ANJANI RAO .H S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.114, ANJANADHRI NILAYA SHASHIDHARA, DWARAKA NAGARA 2ND STAGE, CHANNASANDRA BENGALURU. ALSO AT NO. 123 DWARAKANAGARA DWARAKA NAGARA BENGALURU SOUTH RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU 98. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.217/4, 3RD FLOOR, KVV SAMRAT 3RD MAIN, OUTER RING ROAD KASTURINAGAR, BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGER. 2. BASAVESHWARA TOURS AND TRAVELS PROPRIETOR, NO.29 Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23031 M.F.A. No.9072/2019 P.P. LAYOUT SANDAY DEEPA ASHRAMA ROAD CHIKKALASANDRA, UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU 560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS H/S V/C/O DTD:06.11.2023) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD.30.07.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO.6071/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), 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 MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the injured appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 30.07.2019 passed in MVC.No.6071/2017 by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Sri.Sripad V. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal, in the absence - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23031 M.F.A. No.9072/2019 of any evidence on record regarding negligence on the part of the injured claimant, erroneously concluded that the appellant contributed to the accident and consequently apportioned 15% negligence to him. It is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation under all other heads. Hence, he seeks to enhance the compensation appropriately by allowing the appeal. 3. Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal has assigned detailed reasons in recording a finding with regard to the contributory negligence, based on the fact that the appellant attempted to cross a busy road at a place where there was no pedestrian crossing. The said aspect, on the face of it, shows the negligence on the part of the appellant and no further evidence is necessary to establish the same; hence, he seeks to sustain the finding with regard to the negligence. It is submitted that the award of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23031 M.F.A. No.9072/2019 compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for enhancement. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The appellant met with road accident on 24.08.2016 while he was crossing the road in front of Nandini booth, 80 feet road, Kariyanapalya, Banashankari, Bengaluru. At that time, the driver of a Toyota car bearing registration No.KA-05-AD-5780 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant, resulting in an accident causing injuries. The Tribunal, recorded a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant on the ground that he was crossing the road at a place where there was no zebra crossing, and accordingly fastened a portion of the liability on him. However, it is to be noticed that the investigation officer after completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23031 M.F.A. No.9072/2019 attributing negligence to the driver of the offending vehicle. In order to prove the negligence, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and also produced the charge sheet material. The charge sheet material indicates the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the absence of any independent evidence to demonstrate that the appellant was negligent or that he crossed the road without due care, the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence is erroneous and the same is required to be interfered. Accordingly, the said finding is set aside. 6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly the appellant has neither examined the doctor nor produced any material evidence to substantiate the disability. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,19,000/- as compensation. However, considering the fact that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries i.e., right fronto-Temporo-Parietal, SDG with contusion, left - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23031 M.F.A. No.9072/2019 fronto Temporal SDH, Left Temporal contusion right peri tentorial, sub-durai hemorrahage right temporopare-ietal bone fracture as is evident from Ex.P3 and taking note of the fact that he was an inpatient for a period of 8 days, I am of the considered view that the compensation awarded under various heads is on the lower side. Accordingly, instead of awarding amount under each head, the ends of justice would be met if an additional compensation of Rs.60,000/- is awarded to the appellant. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation. 7. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The additional compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 8. In modification of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal stands partly allowed. The respondent/insurer shall - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23031 M.F.A. No.9072/2019 deposit the additional compensation amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the appellant. Registry to draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39