JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal preferred by Insurance Company against judgment and decree dated 29.7.2009 passed in Claim Petition No. 539 of 2001 which was preferred by the respondents for death of sole bread winner of the family who died in the accident. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this litigation are that on 29.7.2001 Deceased, Paltu Ram, from his residence, travelled in Maruti Van U.P. 32 AB 4546, for carrying out governmental duties. At that time, one Jeep being driven rashly and negligently came and dashed with the Maruti Van in which deceased, Paltu Ram sustained injuries. He was taken to hospital at Jhansi and there from transferred to hospital at Gwaliar. However he succumbed to injuries. Deceased was aged about 52 years at the time of accident. He had a permanent job. 3. The legal representatives/dependents of deceased Paltu Ram claimed compensation by filing Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 539 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as MACP) under Section 166/140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 1998 Act). Tribunal formulated following four issues:- ^^1- D;k fnukad 29-7-2001 dks le; djhc 9 ctdj 20 feuV ij xzke fpadjk ds ikl >kalh&eÅ jkuhiqj jksM ij ykijokghiwoZd ek:fr oSu la[;k ;wŒihŒ32&,ŒchŒ&4586 ds pkyd }kjk pyk djds thi la[;k&,eŒihŒ15&Mh&5026 esa VDdj ekjh x;h] ftlls iYkVwjke dks xEHkhj pksVsa vk;h vkSj mlh nq?kZVuk esa vk;h gqbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k mudh e`R;q gqbZ \ 2- D;k nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ,oa le; ij ek:fr oSu la[;k ;wŒihŒ&32&,ŒchŒ&4586 dk chek oS/k ,oa ÁHkkoh ugha Fkk rFkk okgu chek ikfylh dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj pyk;k ugha tk jgk FkkA 3- D;k nq?kZVuk ds fnu ,oa le; ij ek:fr oSu pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa ÁHkkoh pkyd ykbZlsal ugha Fkk \ 4- D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ Áfrdj ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdl i{kdkj ls \** 4. The issue no.2 was answered holding that vehicle was duly ensured with the appellant on the date of accident but it was not being used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Issue no.3 was answered in negative holding that driver of the vehicle i.e. Maruti van possessed valid licence on the date of accident. Issue no. 1 and 4 were taken into consideration together and ascertaining age of deceased as 53 years the annual income was computed as Rs. 1,38,171/-. Issue no.3 was answered in negative holding that driver of the vehicle i.e. Maruti van possessed valid licence on the date of accident. Issue no. 1 and 4 were taken into consideration together and ascertaining age of deceased as 53 years the annual income was computed as Rs. 1,38,171/-. One third of the aforesaid amount was reduced towards personal expenses and thereafter amount of compensation by multiply of 11 was computed as Rs.10,13,254/-. Besides Tribunal has further computed Rs.9,500/- under different heads and accordingly awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,22,754/-. The insurance company being aggrieved by this award of Tribunal has come up with basic grievance with regard to quantum of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has submitted that Tribunal has committed a manifest error in not considering contributory negligence of the driver of the jeep. It is submitted that it was the sole negligence of the jeep driver due to which accident occurred. The evidence on record also proves the same. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for appellant that in the F.I.R., negligence of the driver of the jeep was mentioned but after written statement, very surprisingly a new theory was developed that it was the negligent driving of driver of the Maruti Van and not that of the driver of the jeep. 7. It is submitted that entire story was changed, may be because the jeep was not insured and it may be that the driver of jeep was not having valid driving licence. 8. In order to appreciate both these aspects, we may first discuss the issue of contributory negligence and for that the principles for considering negligence will also have to be looked into. 9. 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. 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. 10. It would have to 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 12. 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/s. 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. 13. These provisions (Section 110A and Section110B 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. 14. 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. 14. 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/s. State of Punjab, 2005 0 ACJ(SC) 1840). 15. By the above process, the burden of proof may ordinarily be cast on the defendants in a motor accident claim petition to prove that motor vehicle was being driven with reasonable care or that there is equal negligence on the part of driver of another vehicle. 16. The stand of the claimants was that it was driver of Maruti Van who was negligent and just because F.I.R. speaks about involvement of jeep's driver and his negligence, in absence of F.I.R. being proved, Tribunal has rightly not held that driver of jeep was negligent. Rather P.W.2 has also deposed in favour of the fact that Maruti Van was being driven rashly and negligently and due to that deceased suffered fatal injuries and died after having received such fatal injuries. 17. After going through the record, as is made available to us, we find that Tribunal has considered the matter in its true perspective. The F.I.R. and the charge sheet go to show that the issue No. 1 and 4 are decided as it is proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van. In the beginning, the number of the jeep was not mentioned but later on the number of jeep was noted. The F.I.R. and the charge sheet go to show that the issue No. 1 and 4 are decided as it is proved that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van. In the beginning, the number of the jeep was not mentioned but later on the number of jeep was noted. The driver of the Maruti Van was solely negligent is a finding of facts which is assailed in this appeal. 18. In that view of the matter, we are unable to hold that drivers of both the vehicles had contributed to the accident. The deceased was a non tort feasor, it is an admitted position of fact, therefore, he could claim against either of the tort feasors. The driver or the owner of the Maruti Van has not stepped into witness box before the Tribunal. 19. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that vehicle which was insured with it, was being plied as a commercial vehicle. However, even before the Tribunal or before this Court, nothing is proved to show that the vehicle was being plied for reward. The vehicle was given to the deceased along with driver. Whether any amount was taken or not has not been proved successfully. This fact is neither pleaded in the written statement not is the same being proved, it can not be said that there was breach of policy condition. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel. It can not be said that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. 20. It was lastly contended that the amount awarded was also excessive. 21. Tribunal can not be said to have gone beyond the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Premlata Shukla and others, 2007 AIR, SCW-3591. Income of deceased has been considered at Rs. 1,38,171/-. One third was deducted and multiplier of 11 was given. Though he was in service, nothing has been added as a future prospect and only Rs.9,500/- is awarded under the non pecuniary heads. Therefore, we do not think that the amount awarded can be said to be excessive. Rate of interest can not be said to be on a higher side only 6% per year is awarded. 22. We find no case to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the Tribunal holding that driver of the Maruti Van was solely negligent. 23. Therefore, we do not think that the amount awarded can be said to be excessive. Rate of interest can not be said to be on a higher side only 6% per year is awarded. 22. We find no case to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the Tribunal holding that driver of the Maruti Van was solely negligent. 23. Hence this appeal sans merit and is dismissed. Interim relief shall stands vacated forthwith. 24. The amount deposited here shall be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith.