JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2/New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sri Amresh Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/United India Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and order dated 21.8.1995 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/5th-Additional District Judge, Ballia (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C. No. 2 of 1991.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 14.10.1990 at about 3:00 p.m. deceased Thakurji Upadhaya was returning from Ballia to his house in a jeep bearing no. B.H.N. 793, when the jeep reached near Hanuman Chatti at Ballia Sikandarpur marg, a Tractor bearing No. U.R.I. 732 hit the jeep from front. Accident occurred due to joint negligence of jeep and tractor drivers and as a result of which Thakurji Upadhaya died on the spot.

4. The deceased was 60 years of age at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and was earning Rs. 2,000/- p.m. He was survived by his two sons. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Nil, granted Rs. 50,000/- as the total compensation. The Tribunal held both the drivers namely driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling and the driver of the tractor 50:50% negligent.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs. 2000/- p.m. but the Tribunal has considered his income to be Nil and it should be considered to be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. It is further submitted that the Tribunal neither granted any amount for future loss of income of the deceased nor any amount is awarded under non-pecuniary heads which should be as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (0) Supreme (SC) 105.

6. It is submitted by both the counsels for respondent nos. 2 and 4 that the quantum of compensation and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, let us consider the negligence from the perspective of the law laid down.

8. The term negligence means failure to exercise care towards others which a reasonable and prudent person would in a circumstance or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence can be both intentional or accidental which is normally accidental. More particularly, it connotes reckless driving and the injured must always prove that the either side is negligent. If the injury rather death is caused by something owned or controlled by the negligent party then he is directly liable otherwise the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” meaning thereby “the things speak for itself” would apply.

9. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place.

10. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Renu Singh and Others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as under:

“16. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution 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