Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the award dated 20.12.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Saharanpur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.96 of 2015.
(2.) The appeal is drafted as its Law Officer instructed the Counsel to attach the documents which were never before the Tribunal nor they are produced before the Tribunal also and there is no application for leading of additional evidence. These documents as Annexure in First Appeal From Order cannot be countenanced without there being an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P. Code, therefore, these documents cannot be countenanced but are perused. The documents, which are produced here, were never proved before the Tribunal. These are all subsequent developments, which are not proved. The registration also has not been proved. The Tribunal in its order has distinctly discussed this issue in issue nos.2, 7 and 8.
(3.) 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.;