A.D. Koshal, J. - (1.) THIS is a first appeal from the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh dated the 27th of June, 1968, directing the Appellant State and Respondent No. 4 to pay Rs. 6,400/ - as compensation to Roshnai Ram Respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on the 7th of July, 1967, in the vicinity of the Government Press Building at Chandigarh.
(2.) THE admitted facts are that on the 7th of July, 1967, at about 10 a.m. Roshnai Ram Respondent No. 1 sustained injuries when he was hit by car No. PNE 39 belonging to the Appellant State, after that car had collided with another car bearing registration No. DLJ -4290. It is further not in dispute that the accident took place on the main road just after car No. PNE 39 had emerged from a by -lane. According to the case put forward by the Appellant State, car No. PNE 39 had been hit in the rear by the other car. In this situation the Tribunal held that it was the driver of car No. PNE 39, which is owned by the Appellant State, whose negligence was responsible for the accident. That is why the claim of the Appellant State that it was the driver of the other car whose negligence was responsible for the accident was turned down by the Tribunal which took into consideration the other relevant circumstances for arriving at the sum of Rs. 6,400/ - to be awarded as compensation to Roshnai Ram. The only contention raised on behalf of the Appellant State is that the driver of car No. DLJ 4290 and not that of car No. PNE 39 was responsible for the accident. The contention is wholly without substance in view of the admitted facts, the stand of the Appellant State thereon and Regulation 7 of the Driving Regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Regulation 7 states: The driver of a motor vehicle shall on entering a road intersection, if the road entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other case give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand. The driver of car No. PNE 39 having emerged from a by -lane had thus the duty while entering the main road to allow the right of way to the traffic proceeding on that road. The admission of the State that car No. DLJ 4290 hit the other car in the rear unmistakably indicates that the State -owned car did not care to allow car No. DLJ 4290 to pass on before it itself entered the main road and that on the other hand it refused the right of way to car No. DLJ 42S0 whose driver was well within his right to expect that the car coming from the by -lane would respect his right of way. In this reasoning the learned Advocate General could point out no flaw at all. The negligence for the accident thus rests squarely on the shoulders of the driver of car No. PNE 39.
(3.) NO other point has been urged before me and, for the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.;