JUDGMENT : Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 21.12.1994 passed by the XII Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Agra in MACP No. 239 of 1989 granting compensation to the heirs of the deceased. 2. The facts as they are culled out from the record before this Court are as follows : 3. The motor accident claim petition came to be filed by the claimants/respondents under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming a compensation of Rs.8,97,800/- with interest from the appellants alleging that the deceased Shiv Singh, husband of Smt. Satyawati was employed as a Company Commandant in 15th Battalion PAC. ON 13.12.1988 he met with an accident with the truck no. U.P. B-4296 belonging to the department of State of U.P., Tubewell Construction Division, Agra. The deceased Shiv Singh was standing near octri post at Agra, as per the case of the respondents. It was further alleged that the said truck of the department was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently and that the said death caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck. It was further alleged that the deceased was drawing the salary of Rs.2081/- per month and that his agricultural income was Rs.315/- per month. 4. Smt. Satyawati in her statement stated that the said truck was being driven by Sri Chandra Prakash who was on government duty. It was pointed out that the said truck was going down the slope of the road when its brake suddenly failed and the truck went out of control of the driver. Almost all of the persons who heard the signals and the loud voices of the persons who were sitting in the truck, left the road but the deceased who heard too, did not pay any head, suddenly crossed the road from one side to the other, he was hit by the truck, got injured and ultimately died. She next stated that the said truck was going from Agra to Fatehabad and before the truck was taken out, it was tested and it was found in order and the brakes were intact and in perfect working order. The age of the deceased was also disputed. It was also pointed out that the deceased had a fragile health. She next stated that the said truck was going from Agra to Fatehabad and before the truck was taken out, it was tested and it was found in order and the brakes were intact and in perfect working order. The age of the deceased was also disputed. It was also pointed out that the deceased had a fragile health. The amount of the income shown by the claimant respondent was also disputed. 5. It is submitted by Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of State that the deceased himself was driving the jeep and had contributed to the accident having taken place and that the finding of fact holding driver of vehicle owned by appellant is perverse. 6. It would be relevant to discuss the principles for deciding contributory negligence and for that the principles for considering negligence will also have to be looked into. 7. The term 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 cause physical injury to person. The degree of care required, of course, depends upon facts in each case. On these broad principles, negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 8. 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. On these broad principles, negligence of drivers is required to be assessed. 8. 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. 9. 10th Schedule appended to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 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 should 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. This is termed negligence. 10. 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 Vs. 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. 11. 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. 11. In light of the above discussion, I am 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, Courts 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. 12. 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. 13. While going through the record, it is very clear that accident which had taken place was between two vehicles of unequal magnitude namely the truck driven by the driver of the appellant-State. The Tribunal has relied on the occular version of DW-1-Chandra Prakash also and has held that it is not a case of contributory negligence as pointed out by DW-2 and DW-3 but the driver of State owned vehicle was solely responsible and was author of accident. 14. The first information report goes to show that the truck was on its wrong side and dashed with the jeep. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact on the parameter stated herein above. 15. It is submitted by Sri S.K. Mehrotra-Advocate that the amount of Rs.1,73,600/- with interest is excessive and prays for reduction in the said amount. Having gone through the findings of fact the amount of Rs.1,73,600/- is awarded and Tribunal has given cogent reasons. 15. It is submitted by Sri S.K. Mehrotra-Advocate that the amount of Rs.1,73,600/- with interest is excessive and prays for reduction in the said amount. Having gone through the findings of fact the amount of Rs.1,73,600/- is awarded and Tribunal has given cogent reasons. At the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.2686/- per month while serving in PAC Department and, therefore, the Tribunal has considered the income likewise and even deducted pension which normally should not have been deducted. The depndency has been considered to be Rs.600/- per month and yearly Rs.19,200/- and nothing has been added towards future loss of income. I do not think that the said figure requires any interference by this Court. 16. Appeal fails and is dismissed. Record, if any, be sent to the Tribunal forthwith. 17. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.