Telangana High Court
The Managing Director vs Mohammed Taufeeq Mohiuddin on 6 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.425 of 2020 is filed by the Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.558 of 2020 is filed by the TGSRTC Corporation against the Award and decree passed by the Family Court Cum VIII-Additional District Judge, at Mahabubnagar, (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2015, dated 13.01.2020. The learned Tribunal has determined that both appellants herein are liable for the claimant's injuries experienced in the accident that happened on 24.01.2015 and has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,00,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The Respondent No.1 is the Managing Director, TGSRTC; Respondent No.2 is the owner of the DCM Van which was driven by the claimant and Respondent No.3 is the Shriram General Insurance company. The learned Tribunal has fixed liability on all the respondents.
2
NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2015, the claimant i.e., (Mohammed Taufeeq Mohiuddin) was driving the DCM Van bearing Registration No. AP-22-V-1555 from Mahabubnagar to Deverkadra side, an R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP-29-Z-3427 came from Deverkadra side and while overtaking another vehicle, the bus driver drove it in a high speed, rash and negligent manner towards right side and collided against the DCM Van. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fracture to right leg, fracture of right femur, fracture to right elbow, grievous head injury and other grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Mahabubnagar, later claimant was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and further claimant was admitted to NIMS Hospital as an inpatient. The claimant underwent surgeries and major operation for which the claimant spent a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards medical expenses.
5. The Police, Mahabubnagar Rural registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2015 under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC against the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant also filed a private complaint against the driver of the said RTC bus before JMFC, Mahabubnagar. The claimant averred 3 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 before the Tribunal that he suffered physical pain and mental agony apart from loss of income and became permanently disabled on account of amputation of his right leg and he would have to depend on others for the rest of his life and claimant was having responsibility to look after four minor brothers and an unmarried sister and due to the accident, petitioner and his family members have become destitute and lost future income of the claimant, therefore the claimant claimed Rs.50,00,000/-, as compensation.
6. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 (Managing Director of TGSRTC filed counter and denied the accident taking place because of the rash driving of the RTC bus driver and attributed the negligence to the claimant who drove the DCM van in rash and negligent manner and also denied all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 (Owner of the DCM Van) filed counter-affidavit and admitted that he is the owner of the DCM Van which was duly insured with Respondent No.3 and insurance was in force at the time of the accident; claim petitioner was his employee as a driver of DCM van, however, he stated in the affidavit that due to rash 4 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 and negligent driving of the TGSRTC Bus the accident occurred and Respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No.3 filed their counter, and contended that Insurance Company is not the insurer of DCM van as on the date of the accident; no policy was issued and the claimant was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and Respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and committed breach of contract and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Basing on the pleadings of the both the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the accident occurred on 24.1.2015 at about 09:30 hours, near KM Stone No.7 on Mahabubnagar - Raichur Road within the limits of Dharmapur (V) due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle i.e. (1) R.T.C. Bus bearing No. AP-29-Z-3427 and
2) DCM Vehicle bearing No. AP-22-V1555?
2. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the date and time of the accident?
3. Whether the insurance policy was valid as on the date of accident?
4. What was the earning income of the injured, as on the date of accident?
5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount, from which of the respondents?
6. To what relief?"5
NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020
8. In support of the case of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as P.W1 and also examined PW.2 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondents, RTC driver of the bus concerned examined himself as RW-1, the owner of DCM van i.e. R-2 examined himself as RW-2 while the Legal Officer of the R-3-Insurance Company examined as RW-3. Exs.B1 to B4 and are marked. Ex.X1 and X-2 are marked through PW.4 and PW.5 respectively.
9. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
10. Being aggrieved with the claimant's compensation, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and TGSRTC Corporation both preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.425 of 2020 and M.A.C.M.A.No.558 of 2020 respectively to absolve and exonerate themselves of liability and lower the compensation amount, as the learned Tribunal had awarded exorbitant compensation to the claimant.
6
NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 Contentions of the Shriram General Insurance Company:
11. It is averred that that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident has caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus while overtaking another vehicle without seeing or visualizing the speed of the opposite coming vehicle, has come to its completely right side of the road, and due to the bus speed he was not able to control the vehicle and hit the opposite coming vehicle, as there was no space to go either side to aver the accident.
12. It is further averred that due to impact of the accident, one Honda Activa who was following the DCM Van dashed from backside as the DCM Van was stopped inadvertently due to the hit of the RTC and the rider of the Honda Activa was not able to control his two wheeler as he was exactly back to the DCM Van and hit the DCM Van and died on the spot.
13. It is further averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that PW.6, who was the eyewitness to the accident has categorically admitted that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver and RW1 who was the conductor of the 7 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 bus at the time of the accident, has clearly deposed in cross examination that the RTC bus was travelling on the right side of the road and the learned Tribunal have accepted that the RTC bus driver did not exercise caution while overtaking another vehicle, on the other hand stated that DCM van driver did not take proper precaution while driving on the high way, therefore due to self contributory negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver and DCM, the accident occurred. The leaned Tribunal has rightly fastened the entire liability on the RTC bus driver for his fault and ought to have exonerated the liability in so far as Shriram Insurance Company is concerned.
Contentions of the TGSTRC Corporation:
14. It is averred that learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the aspect of sole negligence on part of the claimant, as the said accident has taken place due to negligent driving of DCM Van, but the Tribunal has erroneously attributed the 50% contributory negligence to that of the driver of the RTC Bus without any cogent and reliable evidence, which is unjust and improper and further contended that learned Tribunal erred in considering the age and income of the claimant without any documentary evidence and erroneously awarded 8 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 excessive compensation for an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- with 9% interest.
15. It is further averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that when the claim is filed under Section 166 of MV Act, 1988 by the claimant for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-, the claimant has to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, however in the instant case, the claimant has not proved the same and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM Van which resulted in injuries of the claimant and also caused another accident wherein the ride of the bike namely viz., Chandrasekhar died on the spot. Initially the police has registered a case against the driver of the DCM van, hence prays the Court to exonerated from liability in so far as RTC Corporation is concerned and set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal in so far as RTC Corporation is concerned.
16 Heard, Sri R.Anurag, learned standing Counsel for TGSRTC and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for Shriram Insurance Company limited and Mohd Abdul Haleem, learned counsel for the claimant. Perused the material on record.
9
NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020
17. Admittedly, both the parties have filed appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is dispute regarding age and income of the deceased more particularly liability of the respondents.. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that:
i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant.?
ii) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on both the appellants.?
iii) Whether the appellants can be exonerated from the liability?
Point No.(1) - Income of the Claimant.
18. Admittedly, the claimant sustained injuries due to accident occurred on 24.01.2015. The claimant claimed that he was working as DCM driver and used to draw salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and to substantiate the claim, the petitioner examined RW2, who is the owner of the DCM Van bearing No.AP-22-V-1555 and he deposed that he had been paying monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant and the claimant was under his employment as a driver, however the claimant could not produce the income certificate to substantiate his contention 10 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 as he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In this regard, it is imperative to look into the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1 wherein it was held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts.
19. It is imperative to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others 2, has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased and the relevant paragraph No.5 reads as under
for read reference:
5. Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited determined an income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004 for a coolie. A Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others found that there would be an incremental increase in the income which according to us would be reasonable if fixed at Rs.500/- per month for every successive year. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2015, 11 years after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthly income of Rs.10,000/-"
1 2001(8) SCC 197 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1092 11 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020
20. In view of recent judgment, dated 13.05.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique's case (cited above) and the fact that though he deceased has not filed any income proof and looking at the avocation of the deceased, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month.
21. PW.2 - Addl.Professor in Orthopeadic Dept. at NIMS has categorically deposed that the claimant was admitted in his hospital on 25.01.2015 with Grade-III C comminuted compound fraxminal tibia fracture R, closed fracture shaft of right femur with crush injury, right leg and GradeI compound fracture dislocation right elbow, with head injury and surgeries were conducted on 09.02.2015 and 23.02.2015 respectively below knee amputation of the right leg, interlocking nailing of right femur and tension band wiring of right elbow were done and the claimant requires removal of implants and prosthetic limb which will cost around Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- and the claimant has suffered permanent disability in the right lower limb and the claimant cannot continue his profession as a driver in view of the said amputation.
12
NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020
22. PW.3 - Civil Asst. Surgeon, Area Hospital, Hyderabad is one of the members of the Medical Board, Mahabubnagar stated that he examined the claimant and found post-traumatic amputation of right leg and assessed the disability at 70% and it is permanent disability; after verifying the medical records of the NIMS Hospital and assessing the disability of PW.1, he has issued Ex.A7 disability certificate which is corresponding to injury as mentioned in Ex.A2 (discharge summary) issued by the NIMS Hospital. Basing on the testimony of PW.2, PW.3 and Ex.A7 (Disability Certificate), the learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that the claimant is assessed at 70% permanent disability.
23. The claimant has filed disability certificate and PW3 who is one of the members of the Medical Board has affirm the same, that the claimant suffered 70% permanent disability and there is no rebuttal oral or documentary evidence neither before the Tribunal or in this Court, hence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month with 70% permanent disability. As far as granting of compensation amount under other heads, the learned Tribunal after considering the Ex.A2 to Ex.A9 has righty granted compensation under other heads which needs no interference. 13
NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favor of claimant against appellants.
Point No.(2 & 3) - Fixing of liability
24. Initially, the Police, Mahabubnagar Rural registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2015 under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC against the claimant. Thereafter, the claimant filed a private complaint against the driver of the said RTC bus before JMFC, Mahabubnagar. Coming to the evaluation of evidence on record as to which of the two vehicles was responsible for the mishap, the PW.4 who is Asst.Sub-Inspector who stated to have conducted the scene of offence panchanama, vide Ex.X-1, the RTC bus is shown to be plying on the right side (wrong side) of the road and colluded with the DCM van and accident occurred. Ex.X-1 (scene of offence panchanama) corroborates the version of PW-4, it is observed that the bus was plying on the right hand side of the road towards Mahabubnagar and it is seen that under the impact of head-on collision, the DCM van flipped and changed its direction thereby lying across the road in front of RTC bus; another noticeable fact is that a rider of Honda Activa bearing Registration No. AP-09-CN-2072 appeared to be following the DCM van and due to collision between the RTC bus 14 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 and DCM van, the rider rammed into the van and died on the spot. In this way, this accident has not only crippled the claimant but also snuffed out the life of the said Honda Activa rider. Therefore, it is clear from the evidences Panchanama and statement of PW-4, that RTC bus has overtook another vehicle in high speed and went right side of the road and the vehicle from opposite direction hit the RTC bus, hence, it is clear that there is rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus driver and the RTC Driver / RTC Corporation cannot be exonerate from the liability.
25. As far as liability on the part of the DCM driver is cornered, the Tribunal at paragraph No.14 of the order has come to an conclusion that "Likewise, the DCM driver (claimant herein) did not take precaution while driving on the highway and it is but natural that if he had driven the van at high speed on the highway, he could have conveniently averted rash against the bus." No doubt, the DCM van was in high speed, and due to sudden applying of the break the vehicle which was behind the DCM van cannot control and dash the DCM Van resulting life of the said Honda Activa rider. The Ex.8 is the driving license of claimant and the Ex.A12 is the Insurance policy which was in force as on the date of the 15 NNR,J M.A.C.M.A.Nos.425 and 558 of 2020 accident, hence the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from their liability and the Tribunal has rightly consider the liability aspect by following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Y.S.Madhavi Latha and others 3 and fixed the liability on the respondents. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 & 3 are answered in favour of claimant and against appellants.
26. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.425 of 2020 filed by the Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A.No.558 of 2020 filed by the TGSRTC Corporation deserved to be and liable to be dismissed and the ground raised by the appellants fall to the ground. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.425 of 2020 and M.A.C.M.A.No.558 of 2020 are dismissed and the Award and decree passed by the Family Court-Cum-VIII-Additional District Judge, at Mahabubnagar in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2015, dated 13.01.2020 is confirmed by this Court.
27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 06.10.2025 SHA 3 2013 ACJ 1960