JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 20.10.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 322 of 2011 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,95,200/- with interest at the rate of 7% as compensation.

3. The accident and involvement of vehicle are not in dispute. The accidental injuries caused death is also not in dispute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is in dispute. The respondent concerned has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The issues to be decided are negligence and the quantum of compensation awarded. The judgment is therefore not stuffed with narration of all facts except for deciding negligence and compensation.

4. We are unable to subscribe to the submission of Shri Ram Singh, learned counsel for appellants that the deceased has not contributed to the accident on our reasonings given later on.

5. In view of the submission made by both the counsels as far as negligence is concerned this Court will have to decide the issue of negligence. It would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding negligence and to decide whether it is a case of composite/contributory negligence which will also have to be looked into and the principles enunciated for considering the same in a motor accident claim will be sifted and discussed finding on negligence.

6. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct evidence, it is an inference to be drawn from proved facts. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one, it is rather a comparative term. What may be negligence in one case may not be so in another. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen and likely to cause physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed.

7. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well-settled law it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was either or going ahead crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently and the driver can be held to be the author of the unforseen incident.

8. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 contains statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle must slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to s