NIKITHA S vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61733
MFA No. 1969 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010240932016





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1969 OF 2016(MV-I)

BETWEEN:

NIKITHA S.,
D/O SURESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1656, "AKSHATA",
TH TH
20 MAIN, 8 CROSS,
NISARGA LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 083.

…APPELLANT







[BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA E P., ADVOCATE (VC)]

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.

…RESPONDENT


Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

[BY SRI D VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5668/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER,
MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61733
MFA No. 1969 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010240932016



THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING , THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 12.12.2014
passed by XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member,
MACT, Bengaluru, in MVC no.5668/2012, this appeal is filed.


2. Perusal of memorandum of appeal would indicate
that appeal is by claimant for enhancement of compensation in
a personal injury claim award.


3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that at 12:40
p.m. on 12.03.2012 when claimant was traveling in BMTC bus
no.KA-01-F-4438 and alighting at Jayadeva Bus Stop, without
verifying that she had got down completely driver moved bus.
Consequently, she lost control, fell down and suffered injuries.
Despite treatment at Fortis hospital, she did not recover fully
and sustained disability. Claiming compensation for same she
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act against
Managing Director, BMTC.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61733
MFA No. 1969 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010240932016




4. On appearance claim petition was opposed on all
grounds. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence.


5. To establish contentions, father of claimant,
claimant and Dr.BK Srinivas were deposed as PWs.1 to 3 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Driver of bus was examined as RW1
and got marked Ex.R1.


6. On consideration tribunal had held accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver,
claimant had sustained injuries and assessed compensation of
Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 8% per annum. Dissatisfied with
award, appeal is filed.


7. In grounds pleaded in memorandum of appeal,
enhancement is sought on compensation awarded towards loss
of income during laid up period, towards diet and other
incidental expenses, pain and suffering, amenities, medical
expenses, future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects
as well as towards loss of future income.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61733
MFA No. 1969 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010240932016




8. On other hand, Sri D Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel
for respondent would oppose appeal. It was submitted that
considering nature of injuries and material on record tribunal
had assessed compensation under each of heads rather
liberally, leaving no scope for enhancement and sought for
dismissal. It was submitted that claimant had sustained
fracture of a tooth for which she got treated at Fortis Hospital
and not only entire medical bills produced were reimbursed but
also sufficient compensation under other heads was granted.
Even rate of interest awarded at 8% was higher and would
offset any scope for enhancement. On said ground sought for
dismissal.


9. Heard learned counsel and perused judgment and
award and record.


10. This appeal is by claimant for enhancement. Only
point that would arise for consideration is:
Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as
prayed?



11. Same is answered in negative for following reasons.
There is no dispute about occurrence of accident involving

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61733
MFA No. 1969 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010240932016



BMTC bus due to its rash and negligent driving and claimant
sustaining injuries. Insofar as compensation towards pain and
suffering, medical evidence on record would indicate that
claimant sustained fracture of one tooth in lower jaw for which
she was treated by a dentist in Fortis Hospital. Tribunal
awarded Rs.30,000/- which appears just and proper. Medical
expenses which included investigation for suspected fracture of
skull, was Rs.25,168/-. Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-
towards medical expenses, thereby reimbursing claimant,
leaving no scope for enhancement. Admittedly, claimant took
inpatient treatment for only four days. Thus award of
Rs.10,000/- towards attendant and other incidental expenses
cannot be stated to be inadequate so as to warrant
interference. Same is sustained. For fracture of one tooth
treated with Root Canal and application of Crown. Despite that
Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities
which would appear more than adequate. Hence no scope for
enhancement. Apart from above Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and
Rs.30,000/- towards permanent physical impairment. Laid up

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61733
MFA No. 1969 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010240932016



period being meager, award of Rs.10,000/- would also appear
just and proper.


12. Insofar as refusal to award compensation towards
future loss of income and instead awarding compensation
towards permanent impairment, claimant has sought to rely
upon deposition of PW3-dentist who treated her. In discharge
summary as well as in his deposition, PW.3 has stated about
treating claimant for fracture of one tooth on lower jaw.
Strangely as would be expected of a dentist, particulars of
fractured tooth is not mentioned and whether disability would
sustain even after treating fractured tooth with crown
application is not clearly stated. In any case assessment of
disability of 10% to whole body would appear highly
speculative. Without stating whether fractured tooth is an
incisor, molar or canine and how it would cause permanent
disability. In absence of any specific material regarding
permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity due
to same, tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards permanent
physical impairment which would be justified. Though
compensation is also sought towards loss of marriage prospects

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61733
MFA No. 1969 of 2016


CNR: KAHC010240932016



due to scarring, claimant has not produced any photographs or
claimant herself not stated about same in her affidavit. Under
above circumstances, award does not call for interference.
dismissed
Consequently, appeal is .


Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16