JUDGMENT : ( 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. 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. 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 are the owner of the truck Sardar Guljarisingh, the driver Shyamlal and the New India Assurance company with which the truck has been insured. They denied the claim. They also denied that the truck emerged out of the lane and collided with the rear portion of the station wagon. They also denied that the truck was being driven rashly or negligently without due care and caution. They denied that the station wagon had reached and has almost negotiated the crossing when the truck emerged out of the road to the west of Indra Bhawan. They denied that they were guilty of negligence for any of the reasons stated by the petitioners. They even denied the injuries that the petitioners had received. On the other hand they asserted that the accident, if any, was due to the negligence and rashes of the driver of the station wagon. ( 6. ) THE Claims Tribunal almost, agreed with the defence. It held that the truck did not emerge out of the lane and dash and collide with the rear portion of the station wagon nor did the accident occur on account of the rash and negligent driving of Shyamlal. On the other hand it held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence and rashness of the driver of the station wagon. The Tribunal further held that neither Princess Jaishree kumariji nor Rani Hemantkumariji has been able to establish that they received the injuries as a result of the accident and dismissed their claims. Both of them have filed the two appeals mentioned above. ( 7. ) THERE is no doubt about the collision. There is also no doubt that the rear portion of the station wagon was hit. There is also no doubt that the accident occurred on the Mahatma Gandhi Road which was earlier known as the Tukoganj Main Road and there is also no doubt that the appellants had received injuries. ( 7. ) THERE is no doubt about the collision. There is also no doubt that the rear portion of the station wagon was hit. There is also no doubt that the accident occurred on the Mahatma Gandhi Road which was earlier known as the Tukoganj Main Road and there is also no doubt that the appellants had received injuries. The Claims Tribunal only doubted the cause of the injuries, namely whether they were due to the collision. The tribunal has rejected the evidence led on behalf of the petitioners claimants now appellants, though a number of them have been examined. ( 8. ) THE three witnesses Patiram (A. W. 8), Rampher (A. W. 7) as well as Girdhari (A. W. 4) the driver have been disbelieved on the ground that there was contradiction about the spot where actually the collision occurred. According to these three witnesses the truck emerged out of a road coming from the side of Kanchanbagh and then it dashed against the station wagon from its rear left side whereas Balwantkumar (A. W. 6) has stated that the truck had crossed half distance of the road and had come upto the middle of the road when the station wagon came to cross the road and overtook the truck. We fail to understand how this station wagon could overtake the truck. By looking to the accident, that is the truck striking on the rear portion of the station wagon it is not possible to accept the statement of Balwantkumar that it overtook the truck. ( 9. ) MERE oral evidence of an accident many a time would be misleading. Normally the witnesses are attracted only after the collision. In the instant case we have got the photo of the station wagon, but not the truck. There is evidence to indicate that the truck had its bumper in the front damaged on account of the collision. But unfortunately neither the photo of the truck has been produced nor is there any reliable map of the spot of the accident. But it is not challenged that the truck actually struck the rear portion of the station wagon. The oral testimonies in such cases are likely to be misleading. Therefore, we have to see the situation as to what could have happened. ( 10. But it is not challenged that the truck actually struck the rear portion of the station wagon. The oral testimonies in such cases are likely to be misleading. Therefore, we have to see the situation as to what could have happened. ( 10. ) WE have evidence here of one vehicle going at a high speed and the other in a low speed, but nobody would be in a position to state how high and how-low the speed was. Only from certain positions, which can not be challenged or cannot be doubted by oral evidence we have to come to the conclusion We have already seen that the road on which the accident actually took place was a very broad road and the truck came from a road the right side of which was almost obstructed. Therefore, if the truck bad come at a low speed as should be done while approaching a crossing, it could have seen that a station wagon was approaching from the main road. If that was so it should not have gone ahead. The evidence of Balwant Kumar, on which the claims Tribunal places reliance in order to discredit the other witnesses cannot be accepted unless we hold that the truck was running at a very high speed without caring to know that he was in a position to see what was coming from right side and without caring to wait whether there was any obstruction. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case Girdhari, the driver of the station wagon has appeared as witness and told his story. There is no story given by the driver of the truck. He has not appeared at all. The story of Girdhari is that while he was driving the wagon in the Tukoganj main road coming from Tilak Statute, a truck emerged all of a sudden from the left hand side on the lane by the side of Hukumchands house. The truck struck against the rear portion of the wagon. By this dash the station wagon made ah about turn and stopped near an electric pole. He also says that it is not possible for anybody to see if any vehicle would be coming from the lane. The driver of the truck has not been examined to contradict this statement. ( 11. By this dash the station wagon made ah about turn and stopped near an electric pole. He also says that it is not possible for anybody to see if any vehicle would be coming from the lane. The driver of the truck has not been examined to contradict this statement. ( 11. ) THE witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the non-applicants are Milkiatsingh (N. A. W. 1) and Dwarkadas (N. A. W. 3 ). According to this Milkiatsingh he was coming in a Fiat Car No. MPE-4444. He was coming from the side of the Tilak statute and going towards the city. The station wagon belonging to the Sailana State overtook him. The truck had come on the crossing of Hukumchands ghanta ghar and was in the centre of the road. He further says that the Sailana car was at a speed and it tried to cross the truck. This witness was about 30 to 40 yards behind. The truck was moving very slowly and was trying to stop, but before it could stop it struck the hind portion of the station wagon on the left. The Sailana car made an about turn and struck against an electric pole. After the accident he stopped his car and found the ladies of the station wagon nervous and he took them to the hospital and left them there. This witness says that the speed of the station wagon was about 45 miles. The Sailana car tried to pass by the right. ( 12. ) THE other witness Dwarkadas, who was accompanying this Milkiatsingh saw that the truck had come to the centre of the road and a station wagon which had already crossed their car wanted to cross the truck. He heard a sound and found that the face of the station wagon had turned. The respondents want us to believe this statement. It is very difficult to accept this. In the written statement, the respondents non applicants while denying almost ail the allegations of the petitioners-appellants have stated that as the driver, namely Shyamlal reached near the corner of the crossing of Tukoganj main Road, which is also known as Mahatma Gandhi Road and the said kanchan bagh road he slowed down the truck and brought it to a dead stop. The driver then blew the horn. The driver then blew the horn. When the driver found that the Mahatma gandhi Road was clear he slowly moved his truck further towards the main road for crossing. As soon as the truck had crossed more than half of the mahatma Gandhi Road its driver saw one station wagon corning at a very high speed on the wrong side, from the side of Tilak Statute, The further plea is that the driver of the station wagon imprudently made an attempt to cross the truck, namely the front of the truck. At this the opposite party No, 2, namely, the driver at once applied breaks in order to avoid accident and stopped the truck. But the driver of the station wagon who was driving it rashly, negligently and at high speed in his act to cross the truck hit the front right portion of the truck with the rear left there by causing damage to the said truck ( 13. ) THE witnesses have not at all supported the above plea that the truck had stopped at the crossing and then proceeded ahead. We also hold that this statement in the written statement cannot be correct. If one stops at the crossing he would certainly see the vehicles coming from the right and if the further statement made in the written statement is correct, then he would be in a position to see the station wagon coming at a high speed. If it was so the truck would not go ahead to cross the main road. The very plea of the defendant does not tally with the common sense. Further so far as those two witnesses, namely Milkiatsingh and Dwarkadas are concerned it is also clear that if the truck had already come on the centre of the main road it must have come at a very high speed ; otherwise it would have seen the station wagon coming. In a case of motor accident and collision 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 drivers 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. It may be that the driver does not always speak the truth, but the drivers 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. The witnesses of this car No. MPE 4444 could only see at the time of the collision as their attention would only be drawn then. ( 14. ) THERE is another aspect of the case. The Tukoganj main road or the Mahatma Gandhi main road is the main road. It was contended by the respondents counsel that to be a main road there should be a special notification. As that notification has not been filed one cannot take advantage of the mahatma Gandhi road being a main road. According to him both the roads in such a case would be considered to be a main road. This road is called the tukoganj Main road. Not only that but for all practical purposes it has been described as main road. Even the non-applicants in their plea has mentioned this Mahatma Gandhi road as the main road (see paragraph 8 ). So also their witness Milkiatsingh. When the non-applicants themselves describe it as the main road it is not necessary for the petitioners-appellants to establish that there was any notification. If they wanted to say that they described it as main road without meaning it and without noting its significance it was for them to say so. But there is no such statement. ( 15. ) HOWEVER, the case may be looked from another angle. So far as the road traffic is concerned we may refer to the rules under the Motor Vehicles act. We may here note the driving regulations under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. Before that the learned counsels reference to the words "main roads" may also be noticed. Under section 77 State Government or any authority authorised in that behalf may by notification in the Official Gazette or by the erection at suitable places of the appropriate traffic sign referred to in Part A of the Ninth Schedule, designate certain roads as main roads for the purposes of the regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule. Under section 77 State Government or any authority authorised in that behalf may by notification in the Official Gazette or by the erection at suitable places of the appropriate traffic sign referred to in Part A of the Ninth Schedule, designate certain roads as main roads for the purposes of the regulations contained in the Tenth Schedule. We have already seen that as this point was not raised by the respondents inspite of the fact that they themselves describe the Mahatma Gandhi road as main road, this question was not enquired into and we have already said that when they themselves describe it as the main road they cannot now say that the petitioners or the appellants should have established that there was some notification to describe the Tukoganj Main road or Mahatma Gandhi road as the main road. Suffice it to say that possibly this Mahatma Gandhi Road is the longest road and possibly the broadest and a notification may exist. But as we are not depending on the notification, we need not discuss this point any more. ( 16. ) IN this connection we have to refer to the driving regulations, in particular Rules 6 and 7. They read as under; "6. The driver of a motor vehicle shall slow down when approaching a road intersection, a road junction or a road corner, and shall not enter any such intersection or junction until he has become aware that he may do so without endangering the safety of persons thereon. 7. The driver of a motor vehicle shall on entering a road inter section, if the road is entered is a main road designated as such, give way to the vehicles proceeding along that road, and in any other case given way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand. " The learned counsel while arguing submitted that when there has been no declaration of a main road the traffics of both the roads have equal right and the drivers of both the roads have a duty to look and then go ahead. There is no precedence as such which can be given to the other roads simply because it is very broad and a large one. This argument falls to the ground as soon as we consider the next rule. There is no precedence as such which can be given to the other roads simply because it is very broad and a large one. This argument falls to the ground as soon as we consider the next rule. Undoubtedly the Mahatma Gandhi Road has got a large traffic and if we follow the last portion of rule 7 quoted above, it clearly says that a person approaching in an intersection has to give way to all traffic approaching the intersection on his right hand. If this rule is followed and if we accept that the truck driver had stopped for a while, he would have certainly allowed the traffic on the right side to proceed and this accident would not have occurred. If, therefore, an accident has occurred it must have occurred, apart from any other reason, for breach of this rule 7. Ultimately in the absence of an explanation from the driver of the truck and with a positive assertion by the driver of the station wagon and relying on Rule 7, which says that the traffic on the right should be given precedence, we are firmly of the view that it was the rash and negligent act of the truck driver that was responsible for the accident. We, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the Claims Tribunal. ( 17. ) THE next question is about compensation. The Claims Tribunal has held that it has not been established that the injuries were on account of this collision. It is rather surprising that he should come to such a conclusion. Both Rani Hemantkumariji as well as Princess Jaishree Kumariji have deposed that they received injuries. Not only that even the witnesses on behalf of the non-applicants, namely Milkiyatsingh (N. A. W. 1) has stated that the ladies were taken to the hospital. In the hospital these ladies were examined on the very day. Dr. Bakliwal (A. W. 5) who examined Rani Hemantkumari did not find any external injury, but she complained of pain on left side-middle chest and left arm and middle of skull. He, therefore, advised-X-ray. He also deposed that he examined Princess Jaishrikumari and found swelling on the right side forehead incised wound with abrasion present. Dr. Mohanlal agarwal, Eye-Specialist, who had examined Rani Hemantkumariji says that he examined her on 31-6-64 and found her eye sight normal. Dr. He, therefore, advised-X-ray. He also deposed that he examined Princess Jaishrikumari and found swelling on the right side forehead incised wound with abrasion present. Dr. Mohanlal agarwal, Eye-Specialist, who had examined Rani Hemantkumariji says that he examined her on 31-6-64 and found her eye sight normal. Dr. Rishi says that he had taken photo of Rani Hemantkumariji. Dr. H. S. D. Sharma (A. W. 9)Professor of Surgery in the M. Y. Hospital has stated that Princess Jaishrikumari was admitted in the hospital on 27-7-64. She was accompanied by her family doctor Dr. Singh. There was X-Ray of right thigh, but nothing abnormal was detected. Rani Hemantkumariji was also admitted. She was unconscious. She was having swelling and pain in the chest. There were minor injuries and she was also discharged the next morning on her own request. ( 18. ) DR. Ohri (A. W. 10) deposed that he had accession to examine the princess Jaishrikumari and Rani Hemantkumariji. He stated that princess jaishrikumariji had fracture of pelvis and Rani Hemantkumariji had fractures of 1st, 4th and 6th ribs of left side. It is rather curious that inspite of this evidence, the Claims Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the injuries have not been established to be on account of the accident. The immediate transfer of the patients to the hospital has been averred. The medical witnesses have described the immediate pain and swelling. They have also testified that they were sent for X-Ray. Dr. Ohri has also stated the type of fractures the two ladies had. It is very unfortunate that the Tribunal should come to the conclusion that no connection has been established. It cannot be said that they had met with an accident else were and was trying to put the injuries they have received in a different accident to this incident in order to make a false claim. We, therefore, hold that Princess Jaishrikumari had fracture of pelvis and Rani hemant Kumariji had fracture of 1st, 4th and 6th ribs, on the left side. ( 19. ) NOW the question comes only of damages. We have seen the claim already mentioned. There are three items regarding the claim of Rani hemantkumariji. About the first item no accounts have been proved. The mere statement by the Diwan that there was some expenses without establishing them from vouchers or production of account books, the expenditure cannot be established. ) NOW the question comes only of damages. We have seen the claim already mentioned. There are three items regarding the claim of Rani hemantkumariji. About the first item no accounts have been proved. The mere statement by the Diwan that there was some expenses without establishing them from vouchers or production of account books, the expenditure cannot be established. As regards the third item permanent impairment of the applicants eye-sight for which she has claimed Rs. 5000, we have the evidence of Dr. Agarwal that the eye-sight was normal. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim the amount on this score. ( 20. ) NOW remains the question of compensation for shock and pain-mental and physical received and suffered. On this account an amount of rs. 5000 has been claimed. Undoubtedly there was shock. She also suffered from pain. There was some mental and physical worries. It is also true that she was not to remain in the hospital for a long time and for the present there is no evidence that any permanent impairment has been there so that we can hold the pain, shock and anguish-mental and physical was very serious. We consider a sum of Rs. 2,000 would be sufficient for the purpose. We, therefore, hold that Rani Hemantkumariji is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2000 only. ( 21. ) AS regards Princess Jaishri Kumariji there are two items only. One is about the expenditure. We have already held that it has not been established Therefore, the item for Rs. 1228. 76 can not be allowed. As regards the other item of Rs. 15,000, looking to the shock, pain and anguish suffered we feel that a sum of Rs. 2000 would meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, hold that Princess Jaishri Kumariji is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2000 only. ( 22. ) IN the result we allow the two appeals to the extent mentioned above with proportionate costs. Counsels fee Rs. 100 in each case, if certified. Appeal partly allowed.