VENKATARAMAN, J. - This is an appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, dismissing the petition which the appellants filed under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1, 50, 000 on account of the death of one Krishnaswami. He was driving the car MSY 3938 in Mount Road at 10-40 A.M. on April 24, 1964. In the opposite direction, the lorry belonging to Smt. R. Hamsavalli (second respondent in the petition and in the appeal before us) came. The case of the appellants was that the lorry was driven by its driver, one Munuswami, in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed against the car MSY 3938, as result of which, Krishnaswami died. The first respondent in the petition is the insurance company, with whom the lorry has been insured.

At the outset, we must clear the confusion which has arisen about the directions of the travel of the lorry and the car. According to the arguments addressed to us on the basis of the sketch, exhibit P-1, drawn by the inspector or police (P.W. 1), who arrived at the spot at 11-20 A.M., i.e., after 40 minutes of the accident, the car was travelling from east to west at the particular place of impact and the lorry was travelling from west to east. The petition alleged that the car was travelling from north to south and the lorry was travelling from south to north. That was apparently because the general direction of the Mount Road is from Madras which is in the north to St. Thomas Mount which is in the south. Mount Road takes a curve in some places and it is enough to state that in the particular spot, the road was from west to east.

Thus, the case of the petitioner set out in the petition may be taken to be that the car was travelling from east to west and that the lorry which was coming in the opposite direction was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car.The written statement of the second respondent which was adopted by the first respondent is to the effect that the lorry was keeping to its proper side of the road and was not driven at a rash speed and that the collision was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased, Krishnaswami. It was pointed out that he had obtained the licence only about four months prior to the occurrence (actually the evidence of P.W. 3 shows that he had obtained the licence only in March, 1964, and before that, he had a learner's licence for three months). It was urged that because he was a novice at driving, he was unable to control his car and made a head on collision on the right hand side of the lorry which was keeping to its proper side of the road and was not being driver at any rash speed. The accident could not be avoided in spite of the best attempt made by the lorry driver.

The eye witnesses to the occurrence who are put forward on the side of the appellants are P.W. 3 and 4. P.W. 3, P Subramaniam, was a friend of the deceased. He was in the front seat to the left of the driver, Krishnaswami. His evidence in the chief examination is to the effect that the lorry came in the opposite direction to the right side of the car and turned to its left side (left side of the lorry) and the right back side of the lorry his the right front portion of the car. He added that the car was going on the left side of the road and that they could not go on the mud portion which was further on the southern portion of the road because there was gravel there.

P.W. 4, Susila, is a public health nursing instructor in Andhra Mahila Sabha Nursing Home. She was a friend of P.W. 3. She went with P.W. 3 and Krishnaswami in the car for an interview at Nandambakam (Beyond St. Thomas Mount) at 11 A.M. She was seated in the back side of the car. Her evidence is that the lorry came in the opposite direction very fast. There were two stationary lorries to their right side. The lorry involved in the accident came past both the stationary lorries. It came to the right of the car