Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2004 in M.C.O.P.Nos.1680 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 2. The claimants/respondents 1 and 4 made a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1680 of 2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Salem, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.8,42,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Two Thousand only) with interest with reference to an accident said to have been occurred on 17.07.2001 at about 10.30 p.m., on the G.S.T.Road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.T.N.27-N-1360 belonging to the appellant Corporation, as a result of which the husband of the first claimant and the father of claimants 2 to 4, aged about 43 years, who was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month as a lorry driver, died. 3. Even though the claimants claimed that the deceased Padmaraja was earning Rs.5000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month as a lorry driver in Sri Vinayaka Lorry Service, the tribunal, taking into consideration Ex.P.19, driving licence of the deceased, fixed his earnings as Rs.3,000/- per month, and after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- towards his personal expenses, arrived at Rs.2000/- as his contribution to the family and adopting a multiplier of 14, awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,000/- towards loss of income. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges, and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling a sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry also and therefore, the compensation, awarded should have been apportioned and that there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the monthly income of the deceased and the multiplier of 14 adopted by the Tribunal in any event is excessive. 5. We have perused the judgment of the tribunal and have given careful consideration to the submissions of the counsel for the appellant. 6. As regards the first submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant it is trite that 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. 6. As regards the first submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant it is trite that 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 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. Negligence is the omission to do 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. The negligence is not a question of 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. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avid acts or omissions which could be reasonable foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon the facts in each case vide M.N.Rajan and others V. Konnali Khalid Haji and another reported in 2004 ACJ 484 . 7. In the instant case, the tribunal has found that the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant Corporation was responsible for the accident as the appellant Corporation has not substantiated, either by examining the driver or the conductor of the bus, the negligence which is attributed to the driver of the lorry involved in the accident. Hence, the plea of contributory negligence urged by the learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation in this appeal is rejected. 8. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the determination of monthly income of the deceased. Hence, the plea of contributory negligence urged by the learned counsel for the appellant transport corporation in this appeal is rejected. 8. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the determination of monthly income of the deceased. In the instant case, though P.W.3 has stated that the monthly income of the deceased was between Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence on record, arrived at the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- which cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant as the deceased was a lorry driver and he could have earned Rs.3,000/-per month. 9. Further, the Tribunal, on the basis of driving licence Ex.P.14, arrived the age of the deceased at 43 and adopted the multiplier of 14 and the facts and circumstances of the case which cannot also be said to be incorrect. 10. Since no other ground is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal. The award dated 10.11.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.1680 of 2002 is, therefore, confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.