that the conversation resulted in wordy quarrel. It may be true that the driver has lost control due to the wordy quarrel between the respondents 1 & 2. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that the 1st respondent has not stopped the autorickshaw when the 2nd respondent pick up quarrel. Despite that quarrel, the 1st respondent continued to drive the autorickshaw forward. It is true that the accident was occurred as a result of the quarrel between the 1st and 2nd respondent. As rightly noted down by the Tribunal, in such a situation the driver could have stopped the autorickshaw so that the present accident could have been avoided. Instead of doing so, the driver continue the quarrel between him and the 2nd respondent. In motor vehicle accident cases, the question to be considered is whether the negligent act of the driver has caused the accident or not. In this case, there is evidence to prove that the accident was happened due to the negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal also found that it was due to the negligent act of the driver the accident was happened, but, the Tribunal also fascened the liability on the copassenger also, who had wordy altercations with the driver.
