High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. K Tare, and S. B. Sen, JJ.
RANI HEMANT KUMARIJI
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
Decided On : Jul 23,1970
In a case of motor accident and collission it is absolutely necessary to know the first hand report from the driver. It may be that the driver does not always speak the truth, but the driver's version is the one which is to be given the best consideration. He is the person who knows what he did. He also knows as to what had actually happened. [Para 13
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 77-main road-declaration of-parties describing a road as main road-proof of the road as 'main road' not necessary.
When the opposite party describes it as the 'main road' the applicant need not prove that the road be declared a main road by a notification under section 77 of the Act. [Paras 14 & 15
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S. 78-Driving Regulations-Rr. 6 & 7-breach of rule 7-is negligent act.
Rule 7 of the Driving Regulations clearly says that a person approaching in an intersection has to give way to all the traffic approaching the intersection on his right side.
Where an accident has occurred by breach of rule 7, and no explanation is coming forth form the driver, it was a case of rash and negligent driving. [Para 16
( 1. ) ON 27-2-64 there was a collision between a goods truck No. MPE-9304 and a station wagon belonging to His Highness Raja Saheb Digvijaysinghji of Sailana, bearing a red plate No. 8. The occupants of the station wagon were Rani Hemantkumariji, her daughter princess Jaishree kumariji, sister in law, nephew and nieces and was being driven by driver girdhari, an employee of the State of Sailana, The truck was driven by driver Shyamlal and belonged to one Sardar Guljarisingh. The exact place where the collision took place is the crossing on the Mahatma Gandhi Road just by the side of Indra Bhawan, a residential house belonging to Sir hukumchand. At the spot, a lane coming from,the south goes towards new palasia to the north. It is also a common ground that the Mahatma Gandhi road is a very wide road and is a main road (whether it was actually notified as such is in dispute) whereas the road coming from the southern side and going towards the north is a side road, looking to the size of the two roads. The breadth of the Mahatma Gandhi Road is more than three times the width of the road coming from the south. For the sake of brevity we will call it the kanchan Bagh Road, an expression used justifiably by the Tribunal also.
( 2. ) AS a result of the collision Rani Hemant Kumariji received certain injuries so also princes Jaishree. Both of them have filed petitions under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, respectively claim cases Nos. 39 of 1964 and 38 of 1964. They were tried together by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal presided by L. P. Gupta who dismissed their petitions and did not award any damages. Against the decisions of the said Tribunal both Rani hemantkumariji and princess Jaishree have filed appeals, being respectively nos. 61 of 66 and 62 of 66. They were heard together and we will also pass a common judgment.
( 3. ) THE petitioners in their petitions claimed that they were going along the M. G. Road towards the West in a Ford Station Wagon belonging to his highness Raja Saheb Digvijaysinghji of Sailana driven by driver Girdhari at a moderate speed and as soon as their vehicle reached and had almost negotiated the crossing of the Mahatma Gandhi Road and the Kanchanbagh Road, the goods truck No. MPE 9304 belonging to Sardar Guljarisingh and driven by shyamlal emerged out of the lane and dashed into and collided with the rear portion of the wagon. The truck was insured with the new India Assurance company It was further alleged that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently without due care and caution. The driver had failed to stop at the crossing while emerging out of the lane before negotiating the closing of the Mahatma Gandhi Road at the time when the station wagon had already come at the crossing. It was because of the truck dashing the rear portion of the station wagon that the accident resulted. The Kanchanbagh road was so narrow and if the truck had come at a moderate speed there would have been no accident. It is also further alleged and not disputed that on the right side of the road coming from the South there is a wall on the side of this Indra bhawan almost screening the advent of vehicles from outside.
( 4. ) WE may mention here that we have the advantage of knowing the spot and both the parties agree that at the crossing on the side of Indra bhawan the wall is no high that a truck coming from the South and going to New palasia would not be visible by any vehicle coming from the right by the mahatma Gandhi road unless it emerges out on the main road. It was, therefore, alleged by the petitioners that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck the accident occurred and they are entitled to damages which they have claimed under different heads. Rani Hemantkumariji has claimed Rs. 10,977. 44 as compensation on the following heads :-
Princess Jaishree Kumari has claimed Rs. 16,288. 76 under the following heads :
( 5. ) IN both the petitions the non-applicants
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.