Judgment :- (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Court), Mathuranthagam District.) P.D. Dinakaran, J This appeal arises out of an order dated 29.07.2004 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.192 of 2002, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathuranthagam allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,53,334/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty three thousand three hundred and thirty four only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a., for the death of the deceased, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 13.08.1999 at 9.30 a.m. 2. According to the respondents/claimants, who are wife, daughters and sons of the deceased on 13.08.1999, when the deceased was returning from his agricultural land in the National Highways Road, the bus belonging to the appellant/transport corporation bearing Registration No.TN-32/NO748 was proceeding towards Kallakurichi from Madras, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased, as a result of which, Periasamy sustained multiple grevious injuries at his head and died on the spot. 3. A claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2002 was filed by the respondents/claimants, claiming a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only), for the death of the deceased, which was resisted by the appellant, disputing the negligence. 4. The tribunal, after framing the issues, decided the claim petition in favour of the claimants. The tribunal held that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, as a result of the same, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The tribunal also held that the claimants are entitled to the compensation for the death of the deceased and determined a sum of Rs.4,33,334/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said award dated 29.07.2004, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 6. Heard Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the award of the Tribunal and all other materials placed before the court, would submit that when the bus was proceeding towards Salavathi Village, the deceased darted across the road from right side unmindful of the traffic. Therefore, the deceased also contributed to the accident. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, the deceased also contributed to the accident. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. He also challenges the compensation awarded to the claimants. 8. We do not see any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The precept of 'negligence' means the failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The test of negligence lies in default to exercise the ordinary care and caution which is expected of a prudent man in the circumstances of a given case. The duty to exercise such a care and caution including reasonable use of his faculties of sight and intelligence to observe and appreciate danger or threatened danger of injury is undoubtedly on the driver of an automobile. If he fails to do so and such failure is the proximate cause of the injury or death, he is guilty of negligence. In other words, the test is whether the driver could, by exercising normal diligence and caution, avert the accident vide M.N. Rajan and others V. Konnali Khalid Haji and another reported in 2004 ACJ 484 . 9. 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 should be common. The test for determining the negligence is whether the driver could be exercising normal care and diligence which ordinarily cautious persons, put in similar circumstances, would have done, to avert the accident. A reasonable man, that is a man of ordinary prudence is presumed to be both free from over-apprehension and from over-confidence. 10. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. In the post mortem report, it is stated that the deceased, who was aged 50 years, died on the head injury sustained by him. Hence, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant concerning the negligence and quantum of compensation has not impressed us. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.4,53,334/- as compensation would not call for any modification or interference. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in awarding a sum of Rs.4,53,334/- as compensation would not call for any modification or interference. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.16077 of 2005 is also dismissed.