JUDGMENT

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri Saurav Srivastava, learned counsel for the State- appellants and Shri Puneet Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents. Perused the record.

2. This appeal has been preferred by appellants against the judgment and award dated 09.02.1996 passed by Special Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda (hereinafter referred to as, 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.180/70 of 1992 of 2016 whereby the claimants were awarded compensation Rs.1,98,000/- with 12% per annum rate of interest.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that on 20.05.1992, an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Gysy UP 32 E 4890 which belongs to the information department with the Motor Cycle driven by the deceased consequently the driver of the Motorcycle UP E 9650. In this accident, deceased sustained grievous injuries due to which he died on the spot.

4. As the issue of negligence is raised by State of U.P. the same would have to be decided as to who was negligent whether the deceased had contributed in the accident having taken place, which has to be evaluated on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. 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 at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently.

7. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain 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 to 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 w