Karnataka HC Rejects BMTC Passenger’s Bid For Higher Compensation, Finds 10% Whole-Body Disability Assessment From One Tooth Fracture Speculative

On 12 March 2012, the appellant fell while alighting from a BMTC bus after the driver moved the vehicle before she had fully alighted.

She sustained a fracture to one tooth and claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal partly allowed her claim, awarding ₹1,60,000 with interest at 8% per annum.

She appealed under Section 173(1), seeking enhancement under several heads, including future loss of income and loss of marriage prospects

The claim arose under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of that Act.

The Court assessed whether the Tribunal’s compensation was justified by the evidence, including evidence of injury, treatment, disability and loss of earning capacity.

The judgment cited no statutory compensation formula or precedent; it required specific evidentiary support for claimed permanent disability, loss of earning capacity and loss of marriage prospects.

The Court found the Tribunal’s awards for pain and suffering, medical expenses, incidental expenses, loss of amenities, laid-up-period income and permanent impairment justified in light of the tooth fracture, four-day inpatient stay and treatment records.

It declined to award future loss of income because the dentist’s evidence did not identify the fractured tooth or establish that the injury caused permanent disability or reduced earning capacity; the asserted 10% whole-body disability was speculative.

The claim for loss of marriage prospects also failed because the appellant produced no photographs supporting scarring and did not describe it in her affidavit.

It dismissed the appeal.