G. P. SINGH, J. : - This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On 24th July, 1968 there was an accident in Jabalpur at the crossing of two roads which will be referred to as Katni road and Stadium road. Katni road goes from bus stand to Katni and Stadium road from Shahid Smarak to the Stadium. The vehicles involved in the accident were Bus No. M. P. K. 5033 owned by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and a motor-cycle driven by Inderjeet Singh. The bus, which at the relevant time was driven by Corporation's driver Abdul Bashir, came from the bus-stand and was proceeding towards Katni. The motor-cycle came from Shahid Smarak side. It collided with the front portion of the bus on the right hand side. Inderjeet Singh sustained fracture of the skull in this accident and died soon thereafter in the hospital. The deceased's widow Vidya Devi and infant son Amarjeet Singh applied to the Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, for award of compensation. The Tribunal held that the claimants failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and the facts and circumstances of the case established that the deceased himself was negligent. On this finding the Tribunal dismissed the claim. The claimants have, therefore, come up in appeal.

2. The first question in this appeal is : whose negligence was the real or substantial cause of the accident? There are three possible answers to this question : (1) The driver of the bus was alone responsible for the accident; (2) the deceased alone was responsible; and (3) both were responsible, as negligence of both substantially caused the accident. The question is essentially a question of fact and the answer must necessarily depend upon the evidence and circumstances of the case.

3. Before evaluating the evidence, certain principles have to be kept in mind. In cases where negligence of the parties is contemporaneous or so nearly contemporaneous as to make it impossible to say that either could have avoided the consequences of the other's negligence, both parties would be held to have substantially caused the accident; Swadling v. Cooper, 1930 All ER 257 at p. 260 (HL). When two vehicles are so moving in relation to one another as to involve risk of a collision, the driver of each vehicle owes a duty to move with due care to avoid any collision; Nance v. Brit. Columbia Elec. Ry Co., (1951) 2 All ER 448 at p. 450 (PC). A reasonably careful driver does not always assume that other users of the road, whether drivers or others, will behave with reasonable care and he guards against the negligence of others when experience shows such negligence to be common; London Transport Executive v. Upson, (1949) 1 All ER 60 at pp. 70, 72 (HL). It is the duty of the driver of a vehicle to keep a good look-out for other traffic, especially at road crossings, junctions and bends; [Charlesworth, Negligence, 5th edition, p. 495]. Every driver of a motor vehicle is required by Section 78 of the Motor Vehicles Act to drive in conformity with the driving regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Act. Regulations 6 and 7, which are relevant for our purposes, read as follows :

"6. The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon.

7. The driver of a motor vehicle shall on entering a road intersection, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that 'road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand."

4. The evidence relating to the accident produced by the appellants consists of three witnesses, namely, Vijay Singh (P. W. 3), Suraj (P. W. 4) and Nathulal (P. W. 5). The respondents examined two witnesses, the driver Abdul Bashir (D. W. 1) and the conductor S