- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8521 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA @ HANUMANTHARAJU S/O.SRI.NAGAPPA, AGE:30 YEARS, R/AT, KUNDALAHALLI COLONY, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 048. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M. LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. D. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.6619/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 05.04.2014 passed by the VI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru in MVC.No.6619/2005 (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.2005 at about 8.30 p.m., petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-EP-4906 on White Field road and going towards Kundalahalli Colony, at that time, a BMTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-3859 came from opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result, claimant sustained fractures. He took treatment as in-patient and suffered permanent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 disability. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The respondent - Corporation denied the contentions of the claimant. It is contended by respondent that accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant and that the driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. Therefore, claimant is not entitled for compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PWs-1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. Respondent examined one witness as RW-1. After hearing both the parties and considering the materials available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,02,520/- by the impugned judgment and award. 7. I have heard the arguments. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 8. The following points emerges for my determination: Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement? 9. My answer to the above point is partly in the affirmative for the following reasons: The fact of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant is not seriously disputed. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has appreciated the evidence available on record and has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The respondents have not challenged the said findings. Hence, there is no need to re-consider the same. 10. Ex.P5 is the Wound certificate, Ex-P6 is the discharge summary given by Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru, Ex.P8 is in-patient records. Ex.P9 is the out-patient record. Ex.P10 is x-ray. These records reveal that claimant sustained following fractures: i. Fracture dislocation of right fore arem. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 ii. Fracture dislocation of right leg, iii. Fracture distal 3rd of radius with dorsal displacement with fracture ulnar styloid process right. 11. The claimant was admitted as in-patient in Bowring and Lady curzon hospital, Bengaluru on 17.08.2005 and discharged on 16.08.2005. He remained as in-patient for about 20 days and took follow up treatment. He claimed to be working as an operator in printing press, earning Rs.4,000/- per month and was aged around 21 years at the time of the accident. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has not assessed the income and disability properly. The disability stated by PW-2 is not assessed properly. Hence, prayed to enhance the same. As per the medical records, age of the claimant is 21 years. He contended that he was earning income of Rs.4,000/- per month but the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1, wherein the income of a coolie was taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. On the basis of the said judgment, he contends that in the present case also income of the claimant may be taken as Rs.4,500/- or at least Rs.4,000/- per month. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the following judgments: i. A. Anandan vs. Abdul Azeez and others2 ii. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Durgappa and others3 iii. M.S. Lokesh vs. Achappa and another4 iv. Aabid Khan vs. Dinesh and others5 v. Suresh vs. Senthil and another6 1 2011 ACJ 2436 2 2004 ACJ 1091 3 2017 ACJ 2600 4 2017 ACJ 1065 5 2024 ACJ 2142 6 Arising out of SLP(C)No.8074 of 2025 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 14. It is submitted that in the above said judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled on how disability must be assessed based on the evidence of doctor and whatever the disability has been assessed by the doctor has to be accepted by the Tribunal. He further contended that amount of compensation in this case is not awarded in accordance with the above said judgment. Therefore, prayed to enhance the same. 15. I have gone through the above judgments. They may be considered as guidance to assess the compensation. Judicial precedents does not mean that the observation made in a judgment based on the facts and circumstances of that particular case must be blindly followed. What is binding under the principle of precedent is the legal reasoning or ratio decidendi laid down in the judgment and not factual findings. Therefore, if a judgment was delivered based on a particular set of facts, it need not be followed in cases with different facts. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 Judicial precedents means following legal principles (ratio decidendi) laid down in the earlier judgment and not the facts accepted in those cases. Therefore, reliance of several decisions of High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court will only add to the volume of the judgments and may not support the contentions of the claimants as those decisions are based on specific facts of each case. It also unnecessarily takes lot of precious time of the Courts in reading the said judgments. 16. The claimant has produced some of the medical bills. It is true that the Tribunal has not considered the same while awarding compensation. In the present case, the claimant was working in the printing press. However, it is difficult to believe the same as he appears to be illiterate, this is evident through his thumb impression in the petition and in his affidavit evidence. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that he was working in printing press as an operator. The year of the accident - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 is 2005 and he was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, his monthly income can be considered as Rs.4,000/-. 17. The disability stated by PW-2 might be a physical disability. According to his evidence, the claimant has suffered disability of 44% to the right lower limb, 27% to the right upper limb and 29% to the whole body. He has stated restriction in the movement of the said organs. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra, the disability stated by the doctor has to be accepted without doubting the same. When there is no contra evidence. As stated earlier, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, the claimant sustained fracture of right femur and left radius. Looking at the nature of work, the disability stated by PW- 2 cannot be considered as functional disability. If he was an operator of printing press, which is not a strenuous job and he can sit and do his work. Neither doctor nor - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 claimant explains nature of work of the claimant. Hence, disability stated by Pw-2 is not functional disability. The Tribunal has taken total disability as 14%, while assessing the compensation, which is on the lower side. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the total permanent functional disability is taken as 20% to the whole body. 19. The age of the claimant is 21 years. His earning is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. Disability is at 20% to the whole body, multiplier applicable is `18'. On that basis compensation under the head loss of future earning capacity is recalculated, as Rs.4,000x12x18x20%=1,72,800/- 20. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on lower side, which requires enhancement. Accordingly, the following amount of compensation is awarded: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and sufferings 75,000 Medical expenses, Nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges 20,000 Loss of income during treatment(Rs.4,000x6) 24,000 Loss of amenities 25,000 Future medical expenses 25,000 Loss of future earning capacity 1,72,800 Total 3,41,800/- Awarded by the Tribunal 1,90,720/- Enhancement 1,51,080/- Rounded off 1,51,000/- 21. Claimant is entitled to interest at 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till its realization. Undisputedly, respondent is liable to pay the same. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. 22. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 05.04.2014, passed in MVC.No.6619/2005, by the VI Additional Judge, Member-MACT, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24464 MFA No. 8521 of 2014 Court of small Causes, Bengaluru, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,51,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization(excluding delayed period of 152 days and future medical expenses). iv) The respondent - Corporation shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of award. v) The remaining portion of the award of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13