- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6057 MFA No. 4794 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4794 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. R. M. ANANDA S/O. MARAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.7, RAGIMAKALAHALLI CHIKKBALLAPURA 2. SMT. ROOPA A. D/O. MARAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT POSETTAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RANGEGOWDA N. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MISS PRABHAVATHI NO.75/3, REVENUE LAYOUT BSK 3RD STAGE SHARADA AHSRAMA ROAD Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6057 MFA No. 4794 of 2022 2ND A CROSS BENGALURU-560 085 2. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. NO.144, 2ND FLOOR SHUBARAM COMPLEX M. G. ROAD BENGLAURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; V/O DATED 4/12/2025, NOTICE TO R-1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.6256/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-16), 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 DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6057 MFA No. 4794 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.N.R.Range Gowda learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri.Janardhan Reddy learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the award that is passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.6256/2018 dated 11.01.2022. This is a claimant's appeal. 3. First appellant being the son and second appellant being the daughter of the deceased Marappa (hereinafter be referred to as the 'deceased' for brevity) who died in a road traffic accident that occurred in the year 2018, filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Holding that the deceased contributed for the accident to occur and said contribution is 50%, the Tribunal directed respondent No.2 herein to pay appellants 50% of their entitled sum. Aggrieved by the decision thus taken, the appellants are before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6057 MFA No. 4794 of 2022 4. The manner of happening of accident as projected by the appellants before the Tribunal is that on 14.09.2018 at about 10.30 a.m. while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle, a swift car bearing registration No.KA-05-MG-522 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. 5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the car. No material whatsoever was produced by the respondents to show that the deceased was negligent. However, the Tribunal solely placing reliance upon Ex.P4 spot mahazar and Ex.P5 sketch came to a conclusion that there was contributory negligence by the deceased. Learned counsel contends that police, after thorough investigation, filed Ex.P8 charge sheet which clearly states that due to the negligence of the driver of the car the accident occurred. Learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6057 MFA No. 4794 of 2022 counsel thereby contends that entire liability has to be fixed upon respondents solely. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the deceased who was riding the bicycle came from wrong direction and hit the car, due to which he sustained injuries and died due to those injuries. Learned counsel also states that the Tribunal having gone through the entire material has fixed contributory negligence to an extent of 50% upon the deceased and thus, the appeal is not maintainable. 7. On a query posed by this Court, whether there is anything in the charge sheet which shows negligence on part of the deceased, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is no averment in the charge sheet regarding negligence on part of the deceased. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the appellants, the Court placed much reliance upon Ex.P4 spot mahazar and Ex.P5 sketch. However, there is no material on record to show - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6057 MFA No. 4794 of 2022 that the car was proceeding on a wrong side. The manner of happening of accident depicts that the deceased could not observe the traffic and the vehicles proceeding on the road. However, it cannot be held that contribution of the deceased is to an extent of 50%. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances and the manner in which the accident occurred, this Court is of the view that negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be more than 10%. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to allow the appeal to that extent and direct respondents to pay the appellants 90% of the amount out of the total amount arrived at. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Contributory negligence attributed on part of the deceased by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru through orders in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6057 MFA No. 4794 of 2022 MVC.No.6256/2018 dated 11.01.2022 is reduced from 50% to 10%. (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit 90% of the total sum arrived at i.e., Rs.5,79,980/- before the concerned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4