S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—As the questions involved in these six appeals, before me are common, they were heard together. I consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment. The facts leading to these appeals are identical except relating to quantum of compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the the tribunal) determined the claims arising out of the same accident by different orders dt. November 15, 1972. The applicants are the respondents in all these appeals. Hereinafter the claimants - respondents will be referred as the applicants, facts first. 2. Jeep DK 7141 was carrying Rajvi Bidmalsingh, Meghasingh, Gadhsingh, Hamid, Jagpalsingh and Sarupsingh from Sriganganagar towards Hanumangarh on January 21, 1970. Bus RSJ 1796 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short the R.S.R.T.C) was carrying Satyagrahies released from Bharatpur and was coming from Hanumangarh towards Ganganagar. Bus RSJ 1796, at the relevant time, was driven by Devkinandan, who was in the employment of the R.S.R.T.C. A collision is said to have taken place between the bus and the Jeep at about 8 a.m. on January 21, 1970 at a distance of about 3 or 4 furlongs from Pakka Saharan on Hanumangarh-Ganganagar road near Dhani Paliwali. The bus collided with the jeep on account of the gross negligence of the bus driver Deokinandan. According to the applicants, it was being driven at a very high speed even though there was fog The applicants have averred that the bus came to the wrong side and collided with the aforesaid jeep coming on its right side. As a result of the collision, all the occupants of the jeep were killed Sarup Singh is said to have died at the hospital and rest five died on the spot. The case of the applicants is that the jeep was being driven at a moderate speed towards left side of the road. The foot brekes of the bus were defective. It had no wipers. The wind screen of the bus was misty and wet with fog and thereby causing invisibility from inside the bus. The bus had no fog light. The front side of the bus, it is alleged, had almost gone over the jeep, which resulted in crushing its occupants. The bonnet, hood and front portion of the jeep were crushed and the body of the jeep was damaged. The bus had no fog light. The front side of the bus, it is alleged, had almost gone over the jeep, which resulted in crushing its occupants. The bonnet, hood and front portion of the jeep were crushed and the body of the jeep was damaged. The appellants-claimants, who are legal, representatives of the deceased occupants, filed separate claims out of which these appeals, as stated above, have been filed. It was prayed in each of the claims that the amounts claimed by the claimants may be awarded against the R.S.R.T.C. 3. The claim was contested by the R.S.R.T.C. & also its driver Deokinandan. They submitted separate replies. The defence taken by them are common. M/S Calcutta Insurance Ltd. Calcutta (for short the Company) also submitted reply to the claims for compensation. The defence of R.S.R.T.C, while controversing the submissions made in the claims for compensation is that the driver Deokinandan was driving the bus at a very moderate speed with due care and caution on the extreme left side of the road. It is said that then the driver Deokinandan saw the aforesaid jeep coming at a very high speed towards the bus, he took the bus to the extreme left so much so that both the wheels of the left side of the bus were on Kuchha road and only right hand side wheels were on the Pukka Road. He left more than 3/4 on the Pukka Road on his right side for the coming jeep to pass, but as the jeep could not be controlled by its driver, he dashed it against the bus on the side of the Driver This resulted in great impact. The right front of the wheel got burst and the right front side of the bus was badly damaged. On account of this impact and burst of front wheel the bus was dragged for a little distance on its right side. The accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the jeeps driver which resulted in casualties. A plea was also taken that when the jeep is insured, the claims are maintainable only against the insurer of the jeep. The quantum of the compensation claimed by the claimants was also denied. The Insurance Company raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the claims for award of compensation viz. A plea was also taken that when the jeep is insured, the claims are maintainable only against the insurer of the jeep. The quantum of the compensation claimed by the claimants was also denied. The Insurance Company raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the claims for award of compensation viz. that it does not disclose any cause of action against it, that the Policy No. ND/2G991/70 covering Jeep No. RJK 7141 did not cover any passenger risk and that the petitioners can under no circumstances make any claim against the Company. Another objection that was taken was that the Jeep was not used in accordance with the "limitation as to use" clause of the policy nor was it being driven by duly licensed driver as provided therein. The following issues were framed in each of the claims, out of which the present appeals have arisen- (1) Whether Shri Deoki Nandan was driving Bus No. RSL 1796 rashly and negligently at the time of the accident? (2) If so, whether jeep car No. RJK 7141 collided with the bus due to rashness and negligence of Shri Deoki Nandan? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled to get compensation and if so, to what extent and from whom ? (4) whether the claim is not maintainable against non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 (R.S.R.T.C. and its Driver)? (5) Relief. Parties led their evidence. 4. The Tribunal, by its order dated November 15, 1972 held as under: - (1) that having regard to the site and the evidence, it is proved that the Driver of the bus was rash and negligent and, therefore, was responsible for the accident, and (2) that the applicants are entitled for compensation. 5. The R.S.R.T.C. has filed the appeals as aforesaid questioning the correctness and validity of the award of compensation. 6. I have heard Mr. R.N. Munshi counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.L. Jain and Mr. C.C. Jain, for the applicants-respondents and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. Mr. R.N. Munshi, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 in all these appeals. 6. I have heard Mr. R.N. Munshi counsel for the appellants and Mr. S.L. Jain and Mr. C.C. Jain, for the applicants-respondents and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. Mr. R.N. Munshi, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 in all these appeals. It may be recalled that issues No. 1 and 2 deal with rash and negligent driving of Shri Deokinandan, driver, at the time of accident and the collision of the bus with the jeep which was the result of that rash and negligent driving. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the statements of P.W.2 Bhagirath, P.W.3 Krishan Gopal P.W. 6 Balvindra Singh, P.W. 7 Amarsingh and P.W. 8 Rameshwarlal and D.W. 1 Deokinandan. D.W. 2 Murlidhar and D.W. 3 Govindsingh. He further referred to Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 (site plan and inspection memo respectively). 8. The Tribunal has carefully considered the aforesaid evidence. 9. The burden of the aforesaid two issues was on the applicants. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur i.e. the things speak for themselves, is not applicable to the case. The case of the applicants is that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the Driver Deokinandan. On the other hand, the defence taken is that the accident has taken place on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. It is the case of collision of two vehicles coming from opposite direction. It is not in dispute that the road is 9 ft. and 6" wide. The Tribunal has considered position of the two vehicles. After accident ASI, prepared the site-plan (Ex. 4) and the site inspection memo (Ex. 5). The site inspection memo (Ex. 5) contains the position and condition of the two vehicles soon after their accident. The bus was found standing at its right side. The rear right double tyre of the bus was at a distance of 13 ft. from the road edge and the left double tyre was at a distance of 6 ft. The wheel of the jeep along with its rim was found struck or entangled in between the differential and the right rear wheel of the bus. The stud of the tub of the jeep were found broken. from the road edge and the left double tyre was at a distance of 6 ft. The wheel of the jeep along with its rim was found struck or entangled in between the differential and the right rear wheel of the bus. The stud of the tub of the jeep were found broken. The right front wheel of the bus had bursted. The bus bumper on its right side near the engine had dents. The front right small and big lights of the bus were completely broken. The front wire gauze of the bus had also fallen down. The handle of the bumper from the front side had dents. There was a dent in the right side of the radiator. There was no wiper blade fitted in the bus, though wiper machine was there inside. There was 3 ft. long scratch mark on the right side of the body of the bus whereby the colour of the body was found removed. The brake of the bus was found deep inside. The jeep was found in a damaged condition on the right side of the bus. Its bumper was found lying at a distance of 10 ft. 6 inches and the jeep was found lying at a distance of 20 ft. 6 inches from the road edge on its left side. The jeep was facing towards the road. The right front portion of the jeep was found beneath the sand and the right bumper was completely dented. The body of the jeep as well as its right front portion got completely smashed The seat on the right side was broken. There was blood on the ground by the side of the drivers seat near the jeep and near the blood, one bottle and one helf bottle were lying. One big battery was also lying beneath the body of the jeep and the handle of the jeep was lying at a distance of 4 ft. 6 inches ahead of the jeep—There is Kuchha upto the road level on both the sides. There were no signs of application of brakes on the pucca road. The wiper blade was not found there due to breaking of the wind screen. 6 inches ahead of the jeep—There is Kuchha upto the road level on both the sides. There were no signs of application of brakes on the pucca road. The wiper blade was not found there due to breaking of the wind screen. The front right portion as well as the body of the jeep were completely smashed and as a result of accident the front portion of the jeep had gone in the sand and front right wheel got entangled in between the differential and the right rear wheel of the bus. The damage to the jeep was much more than the bus. so also, there was more damage to the right part of the jeep in comparison to the right front of the bus. It, is, therefore, clear that after the dash, the right wheel of the bus got bursted and the jeep passed through causing 3 ft. long scratch on the right side of the body of the bus. It is also clear from the site inspection memo that at the time of collision the two vehicles were not driven in the centre of the right road, else there would have been collision smashing or completely damaging the complete front portion of both the vehicles. 10. Now I Advert to the oral evidence. 11. P.W. 2 Bhagirath has deposed that at the time of accident, he was sitting on the front side of the bus. There was fog and on account of that there was poor visibility at some distance. On account of the fog, the water used to spread over the wind screen. He further stated that at the time of accident, the bus was driven at a speed of 40-50 miles per hour and at that time it was driven on the road and not on Kuchha. P.W. 2 Bhagirath has also received some injuries. The sound of the collision drew his attention that the accident had taken place. According to this witness, tyres of the jeep had come out and fallen and the jeep got underneath the bus. He further deposed that he has got experience of driving and had driven jeep since 1958. 12. P.W. 8 Balvendra Singh was one of the passengers in the bus. In his deposition, he has stated that the bus was being driven at the speed of 40-50 miles per hour and that there was dense fog. He further deposed that he has got experience of driving and had driven jeep since 1958. 12. P.W. 8 Balvendra Singh was one of the passengers in the bus. In his deposition, he has stated that the bus was being driven at the speed of 40-50 miles per hour and that there was dense fog. There were no wipers in the bus. The driver used to clean the wind screen when it was affected by the fog. According to him the brakes of the bus were loose and used to be effective on account of poddling 3-4 times. He has also stated that at the time of accident, the bus was being driven on the road. 13. D.W. 2 Deokinandan was bus driver at the time of accident. In his deposition, he has stated that for the first time, he saw the jeep at a distance of one furlough that jeep was coming at a very high speed; that there was no light in the jeep. He gave signal to the jeep. According to him, it was the jeep which dashed against the right front wheel of the bus as a result of which it got bursted. It has been stated by this witness that from the occupants of the jeep smell of alcohal was coming. 14. D.W. 3 Govindsingh is Senior Foreman. He after having visited the spot after accident, submitted the site inspection memo to the Depot Manager. He deposed that the bus was on its side and all the front and the rear wheels of the bus were on the road and not a single wheel of any vehicle coming from the opposite direction could come on the remaining part of the road and that both the front lights of the bus were broken but the filaments of the light got blackened and from that he found that at the time of the accident lights were on. 15. 15. From the aforesaid evidence, the following facts are clearly established : (1) that there was dense fog and so visibility was poor, (2) that driver of the bus was proceeding with the bus with its head lights on; (3) that the bus was proceeding on the main road at a fast speed; (4) that on account of the collision of the two vehicles, there was burst of the front right wheel of the bus; (5) that the bus stopped at a considerable distance on its right side of the Kuchha. 16. The tribunal properly appreciated the statements of P.W. 2 Bhagirath, P.W. 6 Balvindra Singh, P.W. 7 Amar Singh, D.W. 1 Deokinandan and D.W. 3 Govindsingh, and nothing was shown for disbelieving the version given by the claimants witnesses. It may be recalled that on what part of the road the two vehicles were driven at the time of accident is very material consideration for detemining the question of rash and negligent driving. It has come on record that greater part of the road was occupied by the bus. There was no space left for approaching vehicle coming from the opposite direction. In this connection the Tribunal has expressed itself in the following words:- "If the bus would have been driven half of Kachha and half on metalled road that is the two left wheels front and rear would have been on Kachha and the right side wheels on the pucca leaving almost half of the road for the vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the accident would have been averted or at least would have not occasioned in the manner in which it has occasioned. If half of the bus would have been on the Kachha there would have been the track on the bus at the site which could have been noticed." Having regard to the width of the road, which, in this case is, admittedly, 9 ft. and 6 inches and the width of the bus, which is 7 ft., it was the duty of the bus driver to keep it on his own side i.e. to bring vehicle partly on Kuchha and partly on pucca so that the vehicles coming from the opposite direction could easily cross it without coming into contact. 17. In this connection, it is relevant to consider as to what constitute negligence. 17. In this connection, it is relevant to consider as to what constitute negligence. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. An eminent author has stated "Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term". In other words, 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 could be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon the facts in each case. It is well settled that the negligence depends upon determination of various factors. There are three basic elements of this tort viz. (i) an act or omission on the part of the defendant; (ii) intention or negligence or the breach of a strict duty on the part of the defendant; and (iii) damage, resulting to plaintiff from the wrongful act of the defendant which is not too remote. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is clear that the driver of the bus failed to take care, which he should have taken in relation to the approaching jeep. 18. A contention was raised before the Tribunal that the occupants of the jeep were in a state of drunkeness and the driver of the jeep was also in such a state, and on account of the drunken state of the driver, the accident had taken place, for, he failed to take notice of the bus with lights on. This contention was repelled by the Tribunal. The very same contention was reiterated before me P.W 9 Dr. Mohan Ram has been examined. Had there been alone alcohalic smell, there is no reason why it should not have been mentioned in the postmortem report If the occupants and the driver of the jeep were drunken, the Tribunal was right in saying that why it should not have been brought to the notice of P.W. 9 Dr. Mohanram. Mohan Ram has been examined. Had there been alone alcohalic smell, there is no reason why it should not have been mentioned in the postmortem report If the occupants and the driver of the jeep were drunken, the Tribunal was right in saying that why it should not have been brought to the notice of P.W. 9 Dr. Mohanram. Merely on the basis that there were empty bottles in the jeep, inference of drunken state at the time of accident cannot be drawn. 19. Having considered the evidence, on record, bearing on the question of rash and negligent driving by the bus driver Deokinandan and also the reasons given by the Tribunal, I am of opinion that there exists no good ground to take a contrary view from the one taken by the Tribunal when it held that the bus driver Deokinandan was negligent and was responsible for the accident. I, therefore, affirm the findings on issues No. 1 and 2 recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the applicants in all these appeals. 20. As regard quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant did not question that in these appeals. It may be stated that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the principles laid down in Gobald Motor Service v. Veluswami (1), C.K.S. Iyer v. T.K. Nair (2), Sheikhupura Transport Co. v. N I.T. Ins Co. (3) and Bhagchand Panjuram V. Snehlata (4). In an appeal unders. 110-D of the Act, the Appellate Court should not interfere unless the Tribunal had applied wrong principles of law or misdirected itself or amount awarded is very low or high. Reference in this connection may be made to R Selvaraj v. Jagnnathan (5), Champalal v. B.P. Venkataraman (6), and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dayali (7). In these cases, as stated above, it was not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants. 21. No other point survives for my consideration in these appeals. 22. The result is that these appeals have no force and they are, accordingly, dismissed. 23. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.