SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the wife and children of one Mohammed Arif Khan, who lost his life in an incident near C. T. O. Circle, Bangalore at about 11. 30 A. M. on 3. 10. 1987. The deceased was riding a Scooter and a B. T. S. bus is alleged to have come at a high speed and taken a right turn virtually into the line of movement of the Scooterist. The record indicates that both the vehicles had applied brakes as is evident from the skid marks, but the bus collided with the right side of the Scooter and Mohammed Arif Khan sustained serious injuries, particularly to his head. This is one more case where a two wheeler rider was not wearing a helmet, as a result of which, he died on the way to hospital. The claimant wife has set out various reasons as to why the claim was filed after a delay of about 1 1/2 years pointing out all the tragedies that she underwent during this period and the learned advocate who then represented her and who is now a sitting judge has given evidence before the M. A. C. T pointing out that the reasons for the delay were genuine and valid. ( 2 ) UNFORTUNATELY, this is one more of the cases where the conduct of the proceeding before the M. A. C. T has been deplorable and disgraceful. This Court has repeatedly pointed out, if the learned advocates who take up the proceedings are not interested in the cases or in the clients, that they should not conduct the cases merely in order to take the lions share after the compensation is awarded. The first duty on the lawyer is to see to it that all necessary steps are taken to protect the clients interest and that necessarily implies that all the material and all the evidence in support of the claim must be produced. The learned Judge has pointed out that virtually nothing has been produced before the Tribunal except for the oral evidence of the wife, who was also not an eye witness. The Tribunal consequently recorded the finding that it was virtually impossible to award compensation under the majority of the heads and directed payment of a sum of Rs. The learned Judge has pointed out that virtually nothing has been produced before the Tribunal except for the oral evidence of the wife, who was also not an eye witness. The Tribunal consequently recorded the finding that it was virtually impossible to award compensation under the majority of the heads and directed payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum under the no fault liability. The Bar negligence levels have reached alarming dimensions and despite our having passed strictures in the severest terms in case after case, nobody has taken any cognizance of the views of this Court and the same sorry state of affairs continues. Our observations hold good as far as both sides are concerned, because we shall have occasion to point out that even Mr. Dabali, learned Counsel, who represents the Corporation argued with a lot of ability and vehemence in support of the Corporations case but there again he was totally handicapped because no defence of any consequence has been made out before the tribunal. ( 3 ) AN I. A. has been filed with a request that additional material produced before this Court be taken on record as additional evidence. The respondents have rightly objected to this because it is their submission that it being technical, they should have a fair opportunity of testing this evidence which cannot be done before the High Court. The only option in that case would have been to remand the proceeding because in the special facts and circumstances of this case where the learned advocates have deposed to the fact that the wife is a pardhanishan lady, because of mourning, because of distress, because of ill health, above all because of the death of one of her sons due to Cancer, she was hardly able to leave the house for more than a year after the incident and that she had hardly had the capacity of assistance of any learned advocate, that does not mean that she is not entitled to receive compensation which she badly needs after having lost the bread winner of the family. We have more on humanitarian grounds, taken on record the material produced before us. We do not see any injustice being done to the respondents because these are all documents which can hardly be disputed. We have more on humanitarian grounds, taken on record the material produced before us. We do not see any injustice being done to the respondents because these are all documents which can hardly be disputed. ( 4 ) FROM the available material on record, we need to apply the doctrine res ipsa loquitur and since the facts virtually speak for themselves the question whether or not negligence on the part of the bus driver has been established will have to be decided. The bus was the bigger of the two vehicles and it was taking a right turn across the road on which the deceased was proceeding. The first rule which the bus driver was legally obliged to observe was that he had to wait until the road was clear before driving across it and the sketch indicates that the Scooterist had travelled a long way down that road and the bus has virtually swerved into his path way and that too, on the right side of the road. The bus has collided with the right side of the Scooter and these facts more than fully establish that it was the negligence on the part of the bus driver that resulted in the collision. It is true that Mr. Dabali has vehemently argued that from these facts that it was equally plausible to hold that as is typical with two wheeler drivers in the City who always try to rush through any gap in any situation and who have absolutely no consideration for the aspect of fair speed and above all, who do not believe in slowing down regardless of the fact that the bus may be passing the road, that it was obviously an error of judgment on the part of the Scooterist who tried to push his way through despite seeing the bus coming and failed in the effort. Mr. Dabali, has vehemently submitted that if the bus driver is held to be negligent by the court, then by the same standard the Scooterist must be held guilty of contributory negligence and 50 per cent of the compensation must be deducted under this head. Mr. Dabali, has vehemently submitted that if the bus driver is held to be negligent by the court, then by the same standard the Scooterist must be held guilty of contributory negligence and 50 per cent of the compensation must be deducted under this head. We refrain from doing so for only one reason, that a careful reappraisal of the incident will still establish that the fault lay entirely on the bus driver having regard to the point of impact and consequently that there is no justification to foist any liability by way of contributory negligence on the deceased. ( 5 ) THE only head that falls for consideration would be on the question of loss of dependency and we have on record the sworn testimony of the wife who has indicated that her husband had a small shop on Richmond Road and that he used to do the business in Cars apart from some other agency. She states that from the fact that he used to give her Rs. 5,000/- per month for the household and family expenses, that she estimates his income as Rs. 6,000/- per month, but she has not produced any other supporting material. While the appellants learned advocate submits that it is perfectly good evidence, Mr. Dabali has contended that at this level of income, at least, a tax return ought to have been produced and in the absence of any documentary evidence, that the Court will have to discard this figure. We have taken note of one important fact viz. , that if the respondents disputed the correctness of the figures that have been deposed on oath and in examination-in-chief, that they were legally obliged to cross examine the wife-P. W. 1 and bring on record material to show that she is neither untrustworthy or that there is good ground for the court to discard her evidence. Nothing of this sort has come on record and consequently, the Court would have to proceed on the basis of these figures. We have however, taken into account several other facts and circumstances and in our own estimation, we have reduced the figure by virtually 50 per cent and after making the requisite deduction, we have applied the multiplier of 9 and arrived at a figure of Rs. 2,16,000/ -. We have however, taken into account several other facts and circumstances and in our own estimation, we have reduced the figure by virtually 50 per cent and after making the requisite deduction, we have applied the multiplier of 9 and arrived at a figure of Rs. 2,16,000/ -. To this, we have added the heads of customary additions at the lowest level arriving at the figure Rs. 2,29,000/- which is rounded off to Rs. 2,30,000/ -. We take note of the fact that the Tribunal has earlier awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and consequently, the compensation is enhanced by Rs. 2,05,000/ -. The respondents are directed to deposit the balance amount due to the claimants with the Tribunal along with interest at 6 per cent per annum within a period of 12 weeks from today. The Corporations learned advocate did point out to us that there was gross delay in filing the application, but this is automatically offset because of the fact that the interest would only be computed from the date of filing of the application upto the date of payment. Normally, we would have directed that a greater part of the compensation be invested, so that the wife, who is claimant No. 1 could have got long term benefits. The learned advocate has submitted that she was hospitalised and was seriously ill some time back and has produced the documents in support of heavy medical expenditure incurred. In view of this position, we refrain from directing any investment. The amount deposited with the Tribunal shall accordingly be released to the wife, who is claimant No. 1. This Court does not award any proportionate compensation to any of the remaining claimants since it appears that they are all majors. ( 6 ) WITH these directions, the appeal which succeeds to this extent to stand disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .