The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of negligence, duty of care, and burden of proof in motor vehicle accidents, along with the need for new strategies and remedies to address new dangers posed by motor vehicles.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.K. Chatterjee and Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the respondent-Insurance Company.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 1.8.2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No. 624 of 2011 awarding a sum of Rs.9,42,450/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. The accident is not in dispute. The Insurance Company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The claimants – appellants have challenged the award of the Tribunal as far as finding of negligence and on the quantum of compensation awarded.

4. The facts in brief are that Anuj Kumar, aged about 29 year, was a whole seller of textile and was maintaining his wife, son and mother with an annual income of around Rs. 3 Lacs. On 24.8.2010, Anuj Kumar along with his wife Smt. Priya, son Shreya and brother Pankaj was coming to Muzaffarnagar from Saharanpur in his Santro Car No. U.P. 12-J-7976. Anuj Kumar was carefully driving his car in slow and controlled speed at his side. At around 9.00 pm, when they turned towards Rohana after crossing Ghaloli Check Post, the driver of the truck bearing number U.P.-12-L-2062, which was moving ahead them, suddenly applied brake. Following it, Anuj Kumar too applied brake keeping his car at necessary and appropriate distance and stopped the car. The drivers of other vehicles following the car also stopped their vehicles. But the driver of the truck U.P.-12-L-2062 suddenly, speedily and carelessly drove back his vehicle without using dipper and horn. Seeing it, Anuj blew horn of his car and tried to check his car but he could not reverse his car due to there being other vehicles behind the aforesaid car and the driver of the truck reversing the truck speedily and carelessly hit the vehicle Santro Car U.P.-12-J-7976 forcefully and rampaged the truck over the car as a result of which Anuj Kumar, his brother Pankaj and Priya sustained severe injuries. They were taken to District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, Anuj Kumar had been declared dead in the district hospital. In the accident, there was no mistake or carelessness on the part of Anuj Kumar rather the carelessness was on the part of the truck driver regarding which the report was lodged against the truck driver with Crime no. 1519/2010 u/Ss 279, 337, 338, 304-A of I.P.C. at police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar.

5. As far as issue of contributory negligence is concerned as alleged by the appellant, we will have to consider the principles for deciding the negligence. 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 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 likely to caused 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.

6. 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 that