Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—At the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Mr. Girishkumar Ramcharan Chauhan ‘appellant’ original claimant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 17.07.1985 passed by the MACT (Main), Himmatnagar, Distt. Sabarkantha in MACP No. 92 of 1983. The Tribunal was pleased to pass the following order:— “The fact that the corporation would be vicariously liable, for the tortious act committed by it’s servant in the course of his employment, is not denied. But, in view of my finding on the issue No. 1, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. I, therefore, decide the issue No. 2 accordingly. 26. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, I pass following order:- ORDER Both claim-petitions (92 and 93 of 1983) are dismissed with no order as to costs. Pronounced in open Court on this 17th day of July, 1985.” 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in deciding Issue No. 1, which reads as under:- “1. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of S.T. Bus No. G.R.S. 4484 as alleged?” 4. The Tribunal has answered this Issue in ‘negative’. The relevant discussion about this Issue No. 1 is in Paras-8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The same are reproduced for ready perusal:— “8. Issue No. 1: The fact that bothy the claimants sustained injuries during the alleged accident is not at all in dispute. The discharge card Exh.27 showing the nature of the injuries sustained by Girishkumar, has gone in evidence with the consent of the parties. Document Mark 18/37 is the copy of the injury certificate, issued by hospital authority in respect of Anilkumar. Moreover the fact that the driver opponent No. 1. Shakaraji Bhanaji was in the charge of the S.T.Bus in question at the relevant time is not controverted. It is the common version of the claimants that they sustained injuries as they were knocked down by the S.T.Bus, while they were moving on the scooter driven by one Razakbhai. It is alleged that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver opponent No. 1. The allegations, however, are denied by the opponents. 9. It is alleged that the said accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver opponent No. 1. The allegations, however, are denied by the opponents. 9. The claimant Girishkumar has stepped in the witness box and has given the account regarding the circumstances in which the accident took place. Anilkumar claimant in Petition No. 93 of 1983 has filed his affidavit, found at Ex.38 in support of his Girishkumar, in his testimony exh.23, he has stated that three persons including himself, Anilbhai and Razakbhai were riding on the scooter G.T.M. 9376 at the material time. It is his say that before reaching village ‘Karanpur’ on Himatnagar-Shamlaji Road, there is one side Road that is ‘Kutcha-approach road’, to the north of the main road which leads to village ‘Hamirgadh Kump’. According to him, when they reached at a distance about 10 feet from the said place, be saw one S.T.Bus coming on the main road from the left-hand side, that is, from the approach road, leading to ‘Hamirgadh-Kump’. It is asserted by him that the bus was actually seen on the main road and Razakbhai who was plying the scooter, on seeing the S.T.Bus on the road, he negotiated a turn or swerved towards the left had side to the road. It is his say that in the meantime, that scooter dashed against the diesel tank, which is located leaving the right front wheel. It is further stated that as a result of the impact, he was thrown on the road and soon became unconscious. 10. In addition to the oral evidence the claimants have relied on the first information report and the panchnama of the place of accident prepared by the police, soon-after the accident. Exh.25, is the certified true copy of the information lodged by Chunibhai Bhaichandbhai, the conductor of the S.T. Bus, wheel as Ex.26 is the panchnama of the place of the accident. Both the said documents have gone in evidence with the consent of the parties. Now, while giving the account, it is stated by driver Shakaraji Bhanaji Ninama, in his testimony Ex.39, that he had stopped his bus at Karanpur-bus-stand as the passengers were about to get down. According to him, the bus stop is at a distance of about 2 or 3 feet only from the junction of the road i.e. approach-road and the State High-way. According to him, the bus stop is at a distance of about 2 or 3 feet only from the junction of the road i.e. approach-road and the State High-way. According to him, when the passengers got down from the bus, he was about to start his bus. But in the meantime, one scooterist with two pillion rider came on his side and dashed against the diesel tank of his bus i.e. on the right hand side of his bus, at a distance of about 4 feet or so from the front show. It is his say that the scooterist was moving with fast speed, with the result it dashed with the diesel tank. It is his version that when the scooter collided with his bus, he immediately switched off and stopped his bus. It is asserted by him that none of the wheels of his bus, was on the State Highway when the scooter collided with his bus. In this regard, he is fully supported by the contents of the panchnama and the first information Report relied upon by the claimants. 11. It is strenuously urged by Mr. N.R. Pandya, the learned advocate for the claimants that as per the rules of the traffic, the driver of the vehicle entering on the main road from the side road is required to exercise extra diligence and he should see that his vehicle does not collide with the vehicle moving straight on the main road. In his submission, looking to the contradictory version found in the First Information Report and the testimony of the driver, it can be very well said that the claimants have cogently established the negligence on the part of the driver of the S.T. Bus in causing the accident. According to Mr. K.A. Shah, the learned advocate for the opponents when the S.T. Bus had not even entered on the carpet of the Highway and the very fact that the scooter had not dashed against the front portion of the S.T. Bus, it is obvious that the scooterist, under the spell of same fear or otherwise, he left his on track and came on the approach road and dashed against the diesel tank of the bus. It is therefore, submitted by him that the accident was entirely due to the negligent act on the part of the scooterist who was carrying two pillion rider unauthorisedly. 12. It is therefore, submitted by him that the accident was entirely due to the negligent act on the part of the scooterist who was carrying two pillion rider unauthorisedly. 12. Negligence is an omission to do some-thing which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. There are numberous definitions of ‘negligent’, among the best has been declared to be 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 case and caution, which is expected of a prudent man in the circumstances of a given case. If he fails to do so and such failure is the proximate cause of the injury or death, he is guilty of negligence. Negligence is not a question of evidence but it is an inference to be drawn from proved facts.” 5. The Tribunal has discussed the Issue in detail and has taken into consideration the deposition of the Driver of the Bus, viz. Mr. Sakaraji Bhanaji. Besides that, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the information lodged by the conductor of the Bus, viz. Mr. Chunibhai Bhaichandbhai, examined at Exh.25. The Tribunal has reproduced the relevant portion of the same in vernacular. May be that the description is not very accurate, but then it was not vague enough to be discarded. He has specifically deposed that when the bus came from by-road to the highway, it was stopped by the driver to look for the traffic on the highway and it is at that juncture that the scooter came from Himmatnagar side and dashed with the bus near the diesel tank and the scooter fell down and the passenger sitting on the scooter also fell down. 5.1 The Tribunal has also taken trouble to appreciate the ‘panchnama’ of the place of accident and on appreciation of the contents of the panchnama, has come to a conclusion that it was the scooter which collided with the bus and that too near the diesel tank. A finding is recorded to the effect that the bus driver was not negligent at all and it was the scooter driver who was entirely responsible for the accident in question. 5.2 The Tribunal has reproduced the relevant part of the panchnama in vernacular in Para-14. A finding is recorded to the effect that the bus driver was not negligent at all and it was the scooter driver who was entirely responsible for the accident in question. 5.2 The Tribunal has reproduced the relevant part of the panchnama in vernacular in Para-14. The position of the bus is suggestive of the fact that if the bus was in motion, the scooter would not have been in the position in which it was found at the time of drawing the panchnama. The bus was at a halt, which may not be a regular halt of a bus, but that halt was momentous and momentous for the purpose of looking for the traffic on the highway before taking the bus on the highway. It is at that juncture that the scooter came from Himmatnagar side and dashed with the bus near the diesel tank. If the bus was in motion, the scooter would not have dashed near the diesel tank and it would not have been found in the position in which it was found. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual position of the vehicles in question and findings recorded by the Tribunal on appreciation of the relevant evidence, the Court finds no substance in this First Appeal and it is dismissed.