Hon'ble TRIPATHI, J.—The present First Appeal is filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 15th February 1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 111 of 1982. 1.1. An accident took place on 15.02.1982 when one S.T. bus bearing registration No. GRS-8035 at about 11:00 a.m. reached near separating point of Narayan Sarovar Kaiyari road and Narayan Sarovar Lakhpat road. The bus was driven by the opponent No.1 - driver of the S.T. Corporation. The bus was to go to the Ghadhuli village but the driver took the bus towards Narayan Sarovar Lakhpat road. The conductor while noticing the same rang the bell and the opponent No.1 (driver) realized his mistake and therefore he took a sudden and short turn towards Narayan Sarovar - Kaiyari road without slowing down the speed of the bus. In doing so, the driver lost the control over the steering and the bus went off the road between Narayan Sarovar Lakhpat road and Narayan Sarovar Kaiyari road. The bus jumped over several 'khamanas' and turned turtled ultimately. In that accident, number of persons sustained injuries and it gave rise to number of Motor Accident Claims Petitions, which came to be registered as Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 111 of 1982 to 119 of 1982 and Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 157 of 1982, 195 of 1982 and 203 of 1982, total 12 in number. As the amount awarded in all other M.A.C.Ps. i.e. from 112 of 1982 to 119 of 1982 and M.A.C.P. Nos. 157 of 1982, 195 of 1982 and 203 of 1982 was not a substantial amount, the S.T. Corporation did not prefer any appeal. The amount awarded was below the monetary limit prescribed for filing an appeal. 1.2. The Learned Advocate for the S.T. Corporation submitted that the Corporation had filed, in some of the cases, Special Civil Applications challenging the judgment and award but the same were not entertained by this Court. 2. The present First Appeal is filed against an award passed in MACP No. 111 of 1982 wherein the widow of the deceased Dr. Valji Chanaram and four minor children with father of the deceased are the claimants. 3. The Tribunal is pleased to award an amount of Rs. 1,11,000/-. 2. The present First Appeal is filed against an award passed in MACP No. 111 of 1982 wherein the widow of the deceased Dr. Valji Chanaram and four minor children with father of the deceased are the claimants. 3. The Tribunal is pleased to award an amount of Rs. 1,11,000/-. The operative part of the order reads as under: "Claim Petition No. 111 of 1982 is partly allowed with proportionate costs. The claimants shall get the compensation amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- (Rupees one lac eleven thousand only) with proportionate costs together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the application till realization from the opponents who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. On the amount being deposited, Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the claimant No.6. From the remaining amount, 1/4th amount be paid to the claimant No.1 and the remaining 3/4th amount be equally invested in the names of claimant Nos. 2 to 5 till they attain the age of majority. During this period, the quarterly interest on the said deposits be paid to the claimant No.1 for the education and maintenance of the minors. On attaining the age of majority the amount deposited in the name of the claimants be paid to him or her. The amount of deficit court-fees, if any, be recovered from the amount payable to the claimant No.6. The rest of the claims of the claimants is dismissed with no order as to costs. The opponents to bear their own costs." 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding the opponent No.1 negligent. After arguing for some time the learned Advocate gave up this point as the learned Advocate was not able to substantiate the submission that the driver was not negligent. This Court is of the opinion that the opponent was rightly held negligent by the Tribunal as is clear from the facts of the case. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in para No.61. For ready perusal para No.61 is reproduced. "61. To establish the rash and negligent act on the part of the S.T.driver, those claimants who have received the injuries in the accident have been examined in these petitions. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in para No.61. For ready perusal para No.61 is reproduced. "61. To establish the rash and negligent act on the part of the S.T.driver, those claimants who have received the injuries in the accident have been examined in these petitions. Laxmiben has stated in his (her) evidence that on the date of the accident she was travelling by S.T.Bus No.GRS.8035, which was from Narayan Sarowar to Lakhpat. She stated that the bus was being driven by the opponent No.1 in a very rash and negligent manner and when it reached near the crossing point of Narayan Sarowar - Lakhpat road and Narayan Sarowar - Kaiyari road, the bus had fallen on one side as it was being driven by the opponent No.1 with excessive speed and it had gone on the wrong side of the road. The conductor gave the bell and the opponent No.1 took a turn with excessive speed all of a sudden and they felt the jerk. She also stated that she received the injuries on various parts of the body with which I will deal little later. The evidence of this witness was challenged in the cross-examination and she admitted that the driver had come on this road for the first time and, through mistake he had taken the bus towards Lakhpat instead of being it towards, Gadhuli. She stated that as the driver took a turn, the bus had gone on the road and as there were pits dug by the labourers in scarcity period. The bus had fallen on one side. This shows that there was a complete rash act on the part of the opponent No.1 as it took a turn on one side and there was no necessity for him to take sudden turn for going on the correct side. He would have slowly taken the bus in reverse or would have taken the turn with moderate speed so as to come on the correct side of the road but instead of so doing, he tried to come on the main road with excessive speed and by taken a turn thereby the bus had turned on one side. This can be said to be a negligent and rash act on the part of the opponent No.1. Devshankar Shamji, who was travelling in this bus had been examined at Ex. 22. This can be said to be a negligent and rash act on the part of the opponent No.1. Devshankar Shamji, who was travelling in this bus had been examined at Ex. 22. He stated that the opponent No.1 was driving the bus with excessive speed and he could not control the steering. Moreover, it had gone of the road of Narayan Sarowar Lakhpat and Narayan Sarowar Kaiyari road. The bus had fallen on one side and he had received the injuries on various parts of the body. It is pertinent to note that from the cross-examination of this witness, it transpires that at the time of the accident there was no traffic and the bus was being driven with a speed of more than 50 kilometers per hour. The witness admitted in the cross-examination that the driver was going towards Lakhpat through mistake and had taken a turn but the bus had gone on one side and he had come out of the bus through the window. This again shows that the evidence of Laxmiben is fully corroborated by the evidence of Devshankar. Dayaram Sunderji who is the another witness was travelling by the said bus and he stated that when they reached near Narayan Sarowar Lakhpat and Narayan sarowar road, the accident had happened as the driver had taken a turn and the bus had fallen on one side. He was cross-examined on the point and there is nothing so far as the rash or negligent act on the part of the opponent No.1 is concerned so as to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. The 4th witness on the point of rash and negligent act is Sale Amad and his evidence also supports the evidence of other three witnesses whose evidence has been discussed above. Sale has deposed that he was travelling by the bus and it was being driven by the opponent No.1. The bus had gone on the wrong side and the conductor had given the bell. The driver took the turn with excessive speed and the bus had fallen on one side in the pit. He has also received the injuries on the various parts of the body. The evidence so far as the rash and negligent act of the opponent No.1 is concerned is not seriously challenged in the cross-examination of this witness. The driver took the turn with excessive speed and the bus had fallen on one side in the pit. He has also received the injuries on the various parts of the body. The evidence so far as the rash and negligent act of the opponent No.1 is concerned is not seriously challenged in the cross-examination of this witness. Laxmiben was travelling by this bus and she has been examined at Ex.30. Her evidence reads that on the date of the incident the bus No. GRS 8035 was from Narayansarowar to Gadhuli. The bus met with the accident between Narayansarowar Lakhpat road and Narayansarowar Kaiyari road. The bus had fallen on one side and he had received the injuries. The evidence for rash and negligent act on the part of the opponent No.1 has not been challenged in the cross-examination of this witness well as of Sale Amad. Jayantilal who was travelling by this bus has also stated that the accident took place on Narayansarowar Lakhpat and Narayansarowar Kaiyari road and the bus had fallen on one side. The fact that the bus had fallen on the side by itself shows that there was perse rash act and negligent act on the part of the bus driver. Jayantilal has also received the injuries in the said accident with which I will deal little later. Kamabai is another injured witness, who stated that on the date of the accident she was travelling by the bus which was from Koteshwar to Bhuj and was going to Kapurasi village and on way the bus fallen on one side and she received the injuries. The evidence has been challenged in the cross-examination but so far as rash act is concerned nothing is put to her so as to disbelieve her statement. Mamadsha Jamansha is another injured on the witness, who has deposed that the bus met with the accident on the road and it had fallen on one side. He stated that he had received the injuries in the said accident and had to undergo treatment. Champaben has deposed in her evidence that she was coming to Bhuj from Narayansarowar with her husband and children. The bus driver was driving the bus with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The bus went off the road near Narayansarowar and Narayansarowar Kaiyari road. Champaben has deposed in her evidence that she was coming to Bhuj from Narayansarowar with her husband and children. The bus driver was driving the bus with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The bus went off the road near Narayansarowar and Narayansarowar Kaiyari road. The bus had gone on the Lakhpat road instead of Kaiyari road and the conductor gave the bell but the driver had taken the turn of the bus with excessive speed. She had received the injuries on various parts of the body. The another witness on this point is Gopal Ramji who has also stated that he was coming by this bus from Kanoj to Korya and on way the opponent No.1 was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed. Moreover, the bus had fallen on one side near Narayansarowar Kaiyari and Narayansarowar Lakhpat road where two roads separate from each other. The evidence of the witnesses who have been examined at Exs.30 to 33, 40 and 46 have not been seriously challenged so far as the rash and negligent act on the part of the opponent No.1. is concerned. It was argued by Mr. Suchday for all the applicants that there was a rash and negligent act on the part of the opponent No.1. and the number of persons had received the injuries and Dr. Valji died on the spot. The fact that Valjibhai had died in this accident has not been controverted by the opponents. If we consider the evidence of all the witnesses and the manner in which the bus had fallen, the principle of res ipso liquitor can be applied and taking the oral evidence as well as the condition of the bus the rash and negligent act on the part of the opponent No.1 can really be inferred and it can be concluded that by his rash and negligent act the death of Valjibhai was caused and the rest of the claimants sustained the injuries in the accident. Moreover, the driver of S.T.Bus has not come in the box to refute the allegations made by various claimants about his rash and negligent act. It was submitted by Mr. Chhaya that the driver of the bus was not knowing the route and, therefore, the conductor had given the bell and while he turned the bus had fallen on one side. Therefore, Mr. It was submitted by Mr. Chhaya that the driver of the bus was not knowing the route and, therefore, the conductor had given the bell and while he turned the bus had fallen on one side. Therefore, Mr. Chhaya submitted that this is a case of error of judgment but this submission cannot be accepted and there is overwhelming evidence on the record of this case to prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the opponent No.1. Therefore, my finding on point No.1 of all the claim petitions is answered in the affirmative." 5. This Court is of the opinion that if in this case opponent No.1 is not held liable then in no other case, any driver cannot be held liable and negligent. 6. The learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation next argued that the Tribunal has awarded an excessive amount by way of compensation to the claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 111 of 1982. In this regard learned Advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to para 62 wherein the Tribunal has considered the deposition of Vastuben - widow of the deceased who was examined at Exh.19. The Tribunal has also considered the deposition of one Dayaram - Exh.23, with other relevant documents like village form No. 8-A, 6 and 7 & 12, produced at Exh. 67 to 69 and Exh.70. These documents were produced in support of the submission that the deceased was having agricultural income also, in addition to his income as a medical practitioner. The Tribunal after detailed exercise came to the conclusion that for the loss of income from the medical profession, which is assessed to be at Rs. 750/- per month, multiplied by 12, which comes to Rs. 9,000/- from which Rs. 3,000/- is deducted for his personal expenses, taking Rs. 6000/- to be the annual income, multiplied by 15 - the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal, the figure comes to Rs. 90,000/-. The Tribunal has then considered the agricultural income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year and applying the multiplier of 15 has assessed that Rs. 15,000/- to be the loss of agricultural income. Rs. 5000/- is awarded under the head of 'loss to the estate'. Rs. 1,000/- is awarded towards 'obsequial ceremonies' (after death ceremonies), making the total figure of Rs. 1,11,000/-. 7. 1,000/- per year and applying the multiplier of 15 has assessed that Rs. 15,000/- to be the loss of agricultural income. Rs. 5000/- is awarded under the head of 'loss to the estate'. Rs. 1,000/- is awarded towards 'obsequial ceremonies' (after death ceremonies), making the total figure of Rs. 1,11,000/-. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant Corporation vehemently submitted that it is the evidence of the widow herself that her husband did not have any licence to practice medicine in India. Besides that, he did not have any degree qualifying him to practice medicine. She submitted that in light of that no amount could have been awarded for the loss under the head of loss of income from medical profession. She submitted that assuming for the sake of arguments that he had 'practice in medicine' then also, the income derived from that, was not legal and if the income was not legal, the Tribunal could not have considered the same while determining the amount of compensation to the dependants. She also submitted that the aforesaid assertion of the widow of the deceased is falsified by her own statement when she stated that after her husband died, he did not leave any amount and therefore she had to incur debts of 'Baniya' so as to meet with the expenses of post death ceremonies of her husband. The learned Advocate strenuously submitted that if the person was earning, as claimed by the deponent, then this would not have been the situation. She submitted that at least on this point the deponent has not deposed the correct facts and therefore this witness cannot be relied upon to believe that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 750/- per month from 'practice in medicine'. 8. The learned Advocate for the appellant - GSRTC submitted that so far as the amount of Rs. 15,000/- is concerned, which is taken to be the loss of agricultural income is also not justifiable, inasmuch as the land admeasuring 10 Acres has remained as it is and therefore, if at all anything is lost is the amount which may be required to be paid to the person who will be engaged to get the agricultural operations done. So far as loss to the estate and obsequial ceremonies are concerned, learned Advocate refrained from making any comment on the same. 9. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. So far as loss to the estate and obsequial ceremonies are concerned, learned Advocate refrained from making any comment on the same. 9. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Karia vehemently submitted that the deposition of the widow of the deceased is in a very natural tone and the facts deposed are convincing. He submitted that it is specifically stated by the deponent that they were staying in Pakistan and all of a sudden they were required to leave and while so leaving, they could not carry the papers with them. He submitted that widow has in a very natural manner deposed that the husband used to earn Rs. 25 to 30 per day. He submitted that the claim is not exaggerated one. The learned Advocate for the appellant - Corporation can appreciate that the claimant could have done so. He submitted that the amount awarded for loss of earning of the deceased husband is concerned, it cannot be said to be excessive at all. He submitted that therefore this appeal be dismissed. 10. Taking into consideration the rival submissions of the learned Advocates, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking into consideration the income derived from 'practice of medicine' by the deceased in absence of any licence or degree authorizing the deceased for the purpose. But at the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the deceased had four minor children and aged father and the wife who were sustained by the deceased. The 'practice of medicine' may not be stricto senso the practice of medicine but then it appears that he was giving medicine to the people who were reposing confidence in him and in turn they were paying him something. That being so, it cannot be said that he was engaged in any illegal activity by practicing medicine. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that, in this country people give free advice, whether it is sought or not. Similarly, people start with giving free medicine, who in turn are paid by the persons who are benefited by those medicines. Therefore, it cannot be held that he was not earning from the aforesaid vocation. Therefore, instead of taking the figure to be Rs. 750/- per month, it is deemed fit to reduce it to Rs. Similarly, people start with giving free medicine, who in turn are paid by the persons who are benefited by those medicines. Therefore, it cannot be held that he was not earning from the aforesaid vocation. Therefore, instead of taking the figure to be Rs. 750/- per month, it is deemed fit to reduce it to Rs. 600/- per month, multiplied by 12 comes to Rs. 7200/- and 1/3rd is deducted from that amount, the figure comes to Rs. 4800/- which is multiplied by 15 multipliers the final figure comes to Rs. 72,000/-. 11. The income under the head of loss of agricultural income as awarded to be Rs. 15,000/- is not altered for the simple reason that any person who will be required to be engaged to carry on the agricultural operation by the widow of the deceased will not ask for, less than Rs. 100/- per month and if that is taken then the annual expenses will be Rs. 1200/- which will be multiplied by 15 multipliers, the amount comes to Rs. 18,000/- and therefore that amount is maintained as it is. 12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The loss of income which was assessed to be Rs. 90,000/- is reduced to Rs. 72,000/- that will bring down the total to Rs. 93,000/-. The amount is reduced by Rs. 18,000/-. Taking into consideration the length of time which has passed, the Tribunal is directed to pay this amount to the S.T. Corporation, if it is lying with the Tribunal.