J. N. Sarma, J. — This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.7.2000 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 581 of 1996. 2. A claim case was filed for the death of one Pratap Bordoloi. The deceased was a driver by profession and on 15.7.1995 he was coming to Guwahati by driving a vehicle which was owned by Blue Hill Travels, Guwahati. When the bus reached Magma under Gohpur Police Station at about 8.30 PM and passing through a portion of the road, which was submerged with water, a truck bearing registration No. AMA 2819 proceeding from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the bus and as a result the bus was capsized. The driver of the bus namely, Pratap Bordoloi expired as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. A claim was filed for an amount of Rs. 9,00,000. The bus was insured with the M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd, opposite party No.3. The insurance company, opposite party No.3 filed written statement and denied the liability saying that as the driver himself was negligent, he is not entitled to any compensation. Issue No. 2 reads as follows : "Whether the driver of the vehicle No. AR 01/2373 who died in the accident drove the vehicle in negligent manner on the date and at the time and place in question ?" The learned Member relied on police report and came to the following finding: 'The piece of police report is the only material about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident The report clearly discloses that the deceased, Pratap Bordoloi was negligent as he drove his vehicle on the road which was under water and the bus driver being felled to ascertain the road knocked the truck coming from the opposite direction and then capsized. This show that the driver was quite negligent and the entire accident happened due to his carelessness and negligent driving. The claimant's side has totally failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the truck which was coming from the opposite direction either by adducing oral evidence or by producing any documentary evidence." 3. The learned Member, MAC Tribunal relied on 1997 (2) TAC 307 (Madras). That is a decision by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The claimant's side has totally failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the truck which was coming from the opposite direction either by adducing oral evidence or by producing any documentary evidence." 3. The learned Member, MAC Tribunal relied on 1997 (2) TAC 307 (Madras). That is a decision by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The facts are as follows : "On 19th June, 1989 at about 2.00 AM while claimant MACT OP No. 22 of 91 was driving a car bearing registration No. TDT 3939, the claimant in MACT OP No.26 of 1990 who is the owner of the said car and one Pandurangan, claimant, in MACT OP No. 202 of 1989 who sustained grievous injuries (later died due to the injuries), met with an accident with another lorry and dashed against a culvert on the right side of the road. On the fateful day, in the said car, the claimant in MACT OP No. 202 of 1989 Sub Inspector of Police and 2 other Police Constables escorted Mr. Veerapandi Arumugham, Minister, who was proceeding towards, Madurai. The car was driven by one Manthiramoorthy, claimant in MACT OP No. 22 of 1991. The said car belongs to one V. Radhakrishnan, claimant in MACT OP No.26 of 1990. One of the Constables, who was travelling in the said car, was examined as PW 2 as eye witness. The driver of the car was also examined as PW 6. First Information Report has been marked as Ext PI. After pointing out discrepancy in the oral evidence of PW 2 and PW 6 and in the light of the other documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was solely due to the rashness and negligence of PW 6, the driver of the car TDT 3939, who is also claimant in MACT No. 22 of 1991. There is no dispute with regard to the said finding and we are also in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on this aspect." That judgment is no longer good law in view of judgment of Apex Court. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the said finding and we are also in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on this aspect." That judgment is no longer good law in view of judgment of Apex Court. 4. It was pointed out by the Apex Court in AIR 2001 SC 485 (S. Kaushnuma Begum & others vs. The New India Assurance Co Ltd & others) what is negligence in order to be entitled compensation as follows : "In Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai (SC 1690) the question considered was regarding the application of the Rule in cases arising out of motor accidents. The observation made by ES Venkataramiah, J (as he then was) can profitably be extracted here (para 8 of AIR): "Today, thanks to the modern civilization, thousands of motor vehicles are put on the road and the largest number of injuries and deaths are taking place on the roads on account of the motor vehicles accidents. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, the motor vehicles upon the roads maybe regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands vs. Fetcher. From the point of view of the pedestrian the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of the motor vehicles highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where the drivers of the motor vehicles who have caused the accidents are not known are increasing in number. Where a pedestrian without negligence on his part is injured or killed by a motorist whether negligently or not, he or his legal representa­tives as the case may be should be entitled to recover damages if the principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. In order to meet to some extent the d responsibility of the society to the deaths and injuries caused in road accidents there has been a continuous agitation throughout the world to make the liability for damages arising out of motor vehicles accidents as a liability without fault. Like any other common law principle, which is acceptable to our jurisprudence, the Rule in Rylands vs. Fcu-her (1861-73 All ER (Reprint I) can be followed at least until any other new preamble which excels the former can be evolved, or until legislation provides different. Like any other common law principle, which is acceptable to our jurisprudence, the Rule in Rylands vs. Fcu-her (1861-73 All ER (Reprint I) can be followed at least until any other new preamble which excels the former can be evolved, or until legislation provides different. Hence, we are disposed to adopt the Rule in claims for compensation made in respect of motor accidents." 5. On this law we hold that if an accident occurred whether due to negligence or not, the claimants are entitled to compensation. Further, we hold that it is not the position in the case in hand inasmuch as the vehicle in question was dashed by a lorry coming from opposite direction and as such, it cannot be said that it was a case of rashness and negligence of the driver of the Bus. Accordingly, the finding on Issue No. 2 given by the Tribunal shall stand quashed. We hold that the claim petition is maintainable. We do not feel it proper to determine the quantum of compensation in view of necessity to appreciate the evidence. The matter shall go back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 26th November, 2001. As the accident took place in the year 1995, the Tribunal shall make an attempt to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the record. As the insurance company did not appear before this Court through representation was made, notice shall go to the opposite parties including the insurance company. Heard Mr. SP Deka learned Advocate for the appellant.