JUDGMENT

Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri S.K.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the U.P.S.R.T.C, challenges the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1997 passed by VI Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad, passed in M.A.C.P. No. 47 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,20,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12%.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the record is that on 21.09.1994, Navin Kumar Garg was going from Hapur towards Pilakhuwa on a scooter bearing no. U.P.14B-1251 along with his friend Sanjai Kumar who was a pillion rider. As soon as the scooter of the deceased reached near village Anwarpur the U.P. Roadways bus bearing no. U.P.G-4767 came from behind in a very high speed, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and dashed the scooter of Navin Kumar Garg, he was brought to Shri Ram Hospital Pilukhuwa where he was declared dead. The accident took place because of the sole negligent driving of the U.P.Roadways bus driver.

4. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- for the death of the sole bread winner who died on 29.01.1994 when the scooter was dashed by the driver of the Road Transport Corporation bus. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the driver of the scooter had contributed to the accident which had taken place.

5. While dealing with submission on issue of negligence raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding contributory negligence and for that the principles for considering negligence will also have to be looked into.

6. 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 though it 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.

7. The principle of contributory negligence has been discussed time and again. A person who either contributes or is co author of the accident would be liable for his contribution to the accident having taken place and that amount will be deducted from the compensation payable to him if he is injured and to legal representatives if he dies in the accident.

8. 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 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, reasoable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused