JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Amresh Sinha, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri R.K. Porwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Facts as revealed by record are that on 5.7.2002 at about 4.10 a.m. on Bareilly-Etawah road near Galla Mandi, within circle of P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, when deceased Shivendra Kumar, alongwith his two companions, was coming back to Etawah from Basehor after doing AAMPASI work on a motor cycle on left side of road, Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 coming from the side of Etawah, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, collided with motor cycle of deceased which resulted into death of Shivendra Kumar while other persons sustained grievous injuries. One Yogendra Singh lodged report of accident at P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, on same day at 16:25 hours. Investigating Officer investigated case and after observing necessary formalities, submitted charge-sheet against Saran Singh, driver of tractor. Postmortem examination of deceased Shivendra Kumar was conducted on 5.7.2002 at about 10:00 p.m. Tribunal in its final order awarded a sum of Rs. 9,52,416/- with interest at the rate of 6% as against a claim petition of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Tribunal did not consider driver of motorcycle i.e. deceased negligent. It was driver of Tractor, who was held solely negligent. 3. Both owner and Insurance company (appellant) contested petition before Tribunal and filed their written statements separately. The owner - Tofan Singh has averred in his written statement that amount of compensation as claimed, is too excessive, that tractor was duly insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. On the date of accident vide cover note No. 12810 which was valid w.e.f. 8.9.2001 to 7.9.2002 and tractor was being driven by driver, who had proper driving license on date of accident. Insurance company has mentioned in written statement that no cause of action arose for petitioners to filed instant claim petition as no such accident took place, as alleged in the petition, that, no information as required vide rule 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act has been given to Insurance Company either by owner of tractor or by petitioners, that no copy of F.I.R. charge-sheet, site plan, postmortem report of deceased, registration certificate of tractor, driving license of tractor, been filed on record, that owner and Insurer of offending tractor have not been made party to petition, that no certificate showing the age and income petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. 4. It is further contended that Tribunal has misdirected itself in holding that vehicle was involved in the accident. It is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel that findings are erroneous as offending tractor was not one and same by which accident took place. It was contended that compensation awarded is on much higher side as Tribunal has not deducted amount which was being deducted by employer. 5. It is submitted that Tribunal has fallen in error in not considering ratio laid in case of Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 . Salary of deceased was taken as amount admissible to family without considering deduction made from salary. Learned counsel for appellant relied on certificate issued by department and contended that Tribunal fell in error in not deducting amount under head of PPF, HRA and other deductions, which were made from his salary. It is submitted that multiplier is also on higher side and rate of interest granted is on higher side. 6. It is further submitted that driver of motorcycle i.e. deceased was also negligent in causing accident. 7. It is submitted by counsel for claimants that as far as involvement of vehicle in accident is proved by testimony of PW-2, who has withstood cross-examination also. F.I.R., Charge-sheet and Site-plan prove that tractor was involved in accident and, therefore, it cannot be said that vehicle was not involved in accident. It is further submitted that deceased was not at all negligent. The charge-sheet was laid against driver of Tractor, who has not stepped into witness-box, therefore, the finding of Tribunal need not be disturbed. It is submitted that quantum is as per principles enunciated by this Court and Apex Court and needs no interference. 8. The judgment of Tribunal is based on finding in M.A.C.P. No. 501 of 2002 arising out of same accident despite that learned Counsel for appellant has argued the issue of contributory negligence of deceased and, therefore, we are deciding issue of contributory negligence and involvement of vehicle in accident. 9. Though we had pointed out that Tribunal had decided issue of involvement of vehicle and negligence based on earlier matter, we had contended that he was not aware whether that judgment was challenged or not and, therefore, we decide the issue of involvement of vehicle and negligence afresh. 10. 9. Though we had pointed out that Tribunal had decided issue of involvement of vehicle and negligence based on earlier matter, we had contended that he was not aware whether that judgment was challenged or not and, therefore, we decide the issue of involvement of vehicle and negligence afresh. 10. As far as issue of contributory negligence is concerned, term negligence will have to be seen more particularly negligence as well as contributory negligence. However, even as far as this appeal is concerned, it would be relevant to look into aspect of contributory negligence. 11. Negligence means failure to exercise required degree of care and caution expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon the considerations, which ordinarily regulate conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence is not always a question of direct 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. 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 would be reasonably foreseen likely to caused physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, the negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 12. It would be seen that burden of proof for contributory negligence on the part of deceased has to be discharged by the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the offending vehicle to explain the accident. It is well-settled law that at intersection where two roads cross each other, it is the duty of a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if driver did not slow down at intersection, but continued to proceed at a high speed without caring to notice that another vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of driver necessarily leads to conclusion that vehicle was being driven by him rashly as well as negligently. 13. 13. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations for driving of motor vehicles which also form part of every Driving License. Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the driver of every motor vehicle to slow down vehicle at every intersection or junction of roads or at a turning of the road. It is also provided that driver of the vehicle should not enter intersection or junction of roads unless he makes sure that he would not thereby endanger any other person. Merely, because driver of the Truck was driving vehicle on the left side of road would not absolve him from his responsibility to slow down vehicle as he approaches intersection of roads, particularly when he could have easily seen, that the car over which deceased was riding, was approaching intersection. 14. In view of the fast and constantly increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles upon roads may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) 3 HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of pedestrian, the roads of this country have been rendered by the use of motor vehicles, highly dangerous. ‘Hit and run’ cases where drivers of motor vehicles who have caused accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases 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 principle of social justice should have any meaning at all. 15. These provisions (Section 110A and Section 110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not merely procedural provisions. They substantively affect the rights of the parties. The right of action created by Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was ‘new in its species, new in its quality, new in its principles. In every way it was new. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 16. The right given to legal representatives under Act, 1988 to file an application for compensation for death due to a motor vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This right cannot be hedged in by limitations of an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. New situations and new dangers require new strategies and new remedies. 16. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that even if Courts may not by interpretation displace the principles of law which are considered to be well-settled and, therefore, Court cannot dispense with proof of negligence altogether in all cases of motor vehicle accidents, it is possible to develop the law further on the following lines; when a motor vehicle is being driven with reasonable care, it would ordinarily not meet with an accident and, therefore, rule of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence may be invoked in motor accident cases with greater frequency than in ordinary civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 ACJ (SC) 1840). 17. Tribunal, in deciding issue No. 1, has held as follows : “Issue No. 1 : As regards the factum of accident, petitioners have mentioned in the claim petition that on 5.7.2002 at 4.10 p.m. on Bareilly Etawah road near Galla Mandi within the circle P.S. Ikdil, District Etawah, when deceased Shivendra Kumar alongwith his companions, was coming back to Etawah from Basrehar after doing the AAMPASI work on a motor cycle on the left side of the road, Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 came there from the side of Etawah and collided with the motor cycle of the petitioners and the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Due to collusion of tractor with the motor cycle deceased Shivendra Kumar resulting into the death of Shivendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar on the spot PW1-Smt. Devi is not an eye-witness of the accident. PW2 - Yogendra Singh has stated that the accident took place in his presence and he saw the entire accident on the date of accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732. He has also stated that the driver of the tractor ran after the accident leaving the tractor on the spot. He has lodged the report of accident on the same day at P.S. Ikdil. He has also stated that the driver of the tractor ran after the accident leaving the tractor on the spot. He has lodged the report of accident on the same day at P.S. Ikdil. He has also stated that this incident was witnessed by one Jitendra Singh. He has further stated that after lodging the report Jitendra Singh told him that the accident had taken place with tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 while the police had taken in his custody the another tractor, therefore, on 7.7.2002 he moved application at P.S. Ikdil praying therein to arrest tractor No. UP-75-A/1732. This witness has also admitted that at the time of accident, he was standing at the gate of Mandi at a distance of 8-10 steps and when he reached near the place of accident after incident, he saw that in the accident his father Mahesh Chandra has also died. PW1 - Smt. Devi has also supported the version of accident as mentioned in the petition but she has not seen the accident with her own eyes. The perusal of chik report, 26-C, available on record, reveals that the same facts are mentioned in it except the tractor number. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that D.B. Escort Tractor of read colour had dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. Apart from the above, petitioners have filed copy of charge-sheet 27-C, post-mortem report of Shivendra Kumar 28-C application moved to the Station Officers of P.S. Ekdil 29-C mentioning therein that the accident has taken place with tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 but the I.O. has taken another tractor in custody and hence action be taken against tractor No. UP 75-A/1732. Petitioners have also filed certified copy of judgment passed in M.A.C.P. No. 501 of 2002, Baladeen and others v. Tofan Singh and another, delivered on 5.7.2004. A perusal of the judgment reveals that under issue No. 1, it has already been established that tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 was responsible for the accident on the alleged date, time and place of accident. The copy of charge-sheet, 27-C, also reveals that the I.O. found the driver of Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 responsible for the alleged accident and, therefore, he submitted charge-sheet against the above noted Tractor. The copy of charge-sheet, 27-C, also reveals that the I.O. found the driver of Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 responsible for the alleged accident and, therefore, he submitted charge-sheet against the above noted Tractor. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is well established that on 5.7.2002 at about 4.10 p.m. on Bareilly-Etawah, an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732 resulting into the death of Shivendra Kumar on the spot. Therefore, this issue is decided in affirmative and in favour of petitioners.” 18. Burden of proof that driver was contributory negligent was on defendant which burden they have not discharged. Driver of tractor has not been examined. Charge-sheet has been laid against him. We do not find any material, which may persuade us to take different view as far as involvement of vehicle is concerned and/or negligence of driver of Tractor. 19. The driver of motorcycle cannot be said to have contributed to the accident having taken place. We have decided the matter of contributory negligence as learned Advocate for appellant did not disclose that in the case of Baladeen and others v. Tofan Singh and another, M.A.C.P. No. 501 of 2002, involving same vehicles being Tractor No. UP 75-A/1732, the driver of Tractor was held responsible for alleged accident. Had this been brought to our notice in the beginning and had it been conveyed whether said decision was challenged or not, we would not have re-decided said issue as decision on issue of negligence has already been decided by Tribunal and in the said decision, driver of Tractor has been held solely negligent. In light of decision of High Court of Gujarat in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hamirbhai and others, 2007 (1) GLH 633, we do not say anything about supression of said material by learned Counsel while contending that vehicle was not involved in accident and it was a case of contributory negligence. We decided the same as it was not pointed out that Insurance company has challenged said decision or not. The decision in other matter arising out of same accident will act as res judicata and, therefore, this ground is no longer available to Insurance company as they had not challenged earlier judgment which found that driver of Tractor was responsible. Thus, we hold that driver of Tractor was negligent. 20. The decision in other matter arising out of same accident will act as res judicata and, therefore, this ground is no longer available to Insurance company as they had not challenged earlier judgment which found that driver of Tractor was responsible. Thus, we hold that driver of Tractor was negligent. 20. It is an admitted position of fact that deceased was a salaried person and was working with irrigation department as Irrigation Supervisor. Income of deceased at the time of accident was Rs. 6,975/-, which was supposed to be deducted on the basis of evidence of PW-3, monthly salary, after all deductions, was considered Rs. 6,806/- per month as amount available to the estate. The said amount was considered as per certificate 25-C which was on record and, therefore, Tribunal considered dependency as Rs. 54,448/- per annum after deducting 1/3 for personal expenses. 21. The deceased was aged 25 years. While going through record, it is clear that Tribunal has considered income of deceased. The widow was 23 years of age with two minor daughters. Mother was also dependent on deceased. Tribunal has held that on perusal of Certificate shows that it has been issued on 20.10.2004 by Executive Engineer and as per this certificate, the deceased after deduction received Rs. 6,806/- as monthly salary at the time of accident. No document controverting this fact has been filed on record by appellant. Therefore, after deducting 1/3, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 54,448/- per annum. Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in light of latest decision in the case of Kanhsingh and another v. Tukaram and others, 2015 ACJ 594 , and even on the basis of fact that Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error as the amount of Rs. 9,52,416/- is awarded. Tribunal has, therefore, not committed any error in considering the annual dependency and it cannot be said to be on higher side. Tribunal has not added any amount to said amount which deceased would have earned as he was a salaried person and working with Government. It is an admitted position of fact that deceased was aged 25 years and therefore, the multiplier of 17 cannot be said to be on the higher side and that contention is also required to be rejected and is rejected. We find no reason to interfere with the amount of Rs. It is an admitted position of fact that deceased was aged 25 years and therefore, the multiplier of 17 cannot be said to be on the higher side and that contention is also required to be rejected and is rejected. We find no reason to interfere with the amount of Rs. 9,52,416/- awarded by Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum. 22. This appeal fails and is dismissed. 23. Office is directed to transmit record to lower Court forthwith.