THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2335 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award, dated 20.07.2001, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.P.No.1565/1999. The second respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. is the appellant herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The facts are that on 26.06.1999 when the deceased Dr.Santha Ratnam was proceeding to her house at Gokulnagar, Kancharapalem on her sunny moped bearing No.AP 31M 9580, when reached Paameswari Cinema Hall near Durganagar, the driver of the bus had driven the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 273 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the moped, on account of that the deceased sustained injury to her right leg and while undergoing treatment, on 25.07.99 she died. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 32 years and was working as duty Medical Officer in Prema Hospital on consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/-p.m. from 8.00a.m. to 2.00p.m. and at Kotagiri Hospital as duty doctor from 3.00p.m. to 8.00p.m. on monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. The deceased was also having private nursing home and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. First petitioner is the husband of the deceased, second and third petitioners are the children of the deceased. They claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counters separately denying the petition averments. Respondents specifically denied the manner of accident and contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the deceased, who was in the habit of driving the vehicle in a perplexed and hanky-panky manner. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 10 Z 273 (RTC bus) by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. 4. Basing on the material on record, the learned Judge awarded compensation of Rs.7,89,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the second respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. and aggrieved by the rejection of the remaining amount of compensation claimed, the claimants have preferred cross-objections. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal or cross-objections? 6. The evidence of P.W.1, husband of the deceased is that on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years and was a doctor by profession and was working as Medical Officer at Prema hospital from 8.00a.m. to 2.00p.m. drawing consolidated salary of Rs.4,000/- and the deceased used to work in Kotagiri hospital also from 3.00p.m. to 8.00p.m. and used to draw a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month, which was contributed for the family. Appointment letters issued by Prema Hospital and Kotagiri Hospital were filed with regard to the income of the deceased. With regard to the age of the deceased, S.S.C. certificate of the deceased was filed and the same has to be accepted. Taking into consideration of the educational qualifications of the deceased, the trial Judge assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, Rs.4,000/-per month, i.e. Rs.48,000/- per year can be taken as contribution of the deceased to the family. The learned trial Judge by applying multiplier of 15.5, awarded Rs.7,44,000/- towards loss of dependency, Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and treatment, Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, in total Rs.7,89,000/- was awarded as compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on several decisions, which deal with determination of income of the deceased, but all the decisions relied on by the learned counsel deal with appreciation of documents relating to private employment. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously submitted that Exs.A6 and A7, which are said to be appointment letters are fabricated to claim more compensation. But, considering the Exs.A9 and A10, which are medical registration certificate and MBBS Degree certificate of the deceased, the compensation awarded cannot be said to be high. Taking the age of the deceased, her qualification and possibility of enhancement in future earnings, in fact the petitioners were entitled for more compensation. 7. Considering these circumstances, there are no grounds for allowing the appeal filed by A.P.S.R.T.C. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. As the claim of the petitioners is Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees twenty lakhs only) the cross- objections are referred to Division Bench. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th June 2010, Rns