JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the U.P.S.R.T.C, challenges the judgement and award dated 18.09.2002 passed by M.A.C.T/II-Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 568 of 1999. The fact that the vehicle is involved in the accident which takes place on 25.11.1998 is not in dispute, therefore, involvement of the vehicle is not in dispute. Only dispute now is regarding contributory negligence of injured and the quantum and misjoinder of parties.

3. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 25.11.1998 at about 12:15 p.m, Ashok Kumar Sharma was going to Hathras for his business on his Vespa Scooter no. U.P. 81F-4862. U.P.S.R.T.C driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit the scooter as a result of which Ashok Kumar Sharma sustained grievous injuries got his leg fractured from various places. Injured was given treatment in Hathras but to grievous injuries he was referred to Indraprastha Sarita Vihar, Delhi.

4. The deceased was 35 years of age at the time of accident and he was working in M/s Janardan Sharma & company and was earning Rs. 5000/p.m. He was a married person having two minor children and a wife. The tribunal has granted a lumsum amount of Rs. 6,56, 331/-.

5. Grounds of challenge are that the quantum of compensation awarded is illegal, arbitrary and highly excessive. It is submitted that the tribunal ought to have considered the question of contributory negligence of the claimant as the accident was caused on the rear portion of the bus. It is submitted that the driver of the bus was not negligent and the driving licence and insurance policy was not produced by the respondent and therefore the claim petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the parties.

6. It is further submitted that the claimant who is the injured has not produced any documentary evidence for contending what was his income, the medical vouchers have not been attested by any doctor.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012 ( Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. 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 a