JUDGMENT : Y.B. Bhatt, J. The present appellant is the original applicant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 70 of 1979 and has challenged the judgment and order passed therein by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar, dated 25.1.1980. The Tribunal has dismissed the entire claim of the appellant on the ground that he was solely and entirely responsible for the accident and no proportion of blame could have been laid at the feet of the opponents. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute or are indisputable. The applicant-appellant was driving a Rajdoot motor cycle and was travelling from Rajashthali to Khodiyar Temple on 10.1.1979 when at about 3.45 p.m. the accident took place. This accident took place at the junction of the Palitana-Songadh Road along which the applicant-appellant was travelling which is a smaller road, and the main Bhavnagar-Rajkot Highway along which the ST bus was travelling. The appellant sought to make out a case that it was the driver of the bus who was rash and negligent, that the applicant had already entered the intersection of the roads when the driver of the bus while driving at an excessive speed hit the motor cycle with the front right hand portion of the bus. Thus, according to the appellant-applicant, it was the driver of the S.T. bus who had failed to take due and reasonable care. On the other hand, the opponents both in their written statement at Exh. 7 as also in their oral evidence have sought to establish a case that the bus was driven by the driver at a slow and cautious speed since it had just started from a bus-stop which was hardly 750 feet away from the place of accident, that the bus was being driven on the correct side of the road and that the driver of the bus had sounded his horn and yet the appellant emerged from the side-road at an excessive speed and attempted to cross the road ahead of the bus although he had seen the bus coming from a long distance along the Bhavnagar-Rajkot Highway. On account of this rash and negligent act it was the motor-cyclist who collided with left front wheel of the bus and it was not the bus which collided with the motor cycle. On account of this rash and negligent act it was the motor-cyclist who collided with left front wheel of the bus and it was not the bus which collided with the motor cycle. We do not propose to examine in detail the injuries sustained by the appellant inasmuch as those are not relevant for the present in view of our findings recorded hereinafter. 3. From the evidence on record and particularly from the evidence of the applicant himself and the evidence of the driver of the bus it becomes clear that the appellant has completely misrepresented the situation and the manner in which the accident took place. It is found that it was the motor cycle which hit the left front wheel of the bus as deposed by the driver of the bus and it was not as if the bus had hit the motor cycle with its front corner as contended by the applicant-appellant. It is an admitted position that the S.T. bus was travelling along the Rajkot-Bhavnagar Highway which is a major road, whereas the motor cycle driven by the appellant was travelling along a smaller road, viz., Palitana-Songadh Road and the accident took place at the junction of these two roads. Thus, it was the appellant who was travelling along the smaller road which joined the major highway. Under the circumstances the Tribunal has rightly observed that the appellant entered the road junction at an excessive speed and also committed breach of regulations 6 and 7 and the latter part of regulation 9 of the Tenth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. First it was the duty of the appellant to give way to the bus which was travelling along the major road, particularly when the appellant was approaching the major road from a minor road. Furthermore, it was the duty of the appellant to give way to the S.T. bus since the S.T. bus was approaching from right hand side, as seen from the direction of travel of the appellant motor-cyclist. The appellant has also admitted that he did not hold a driving licence for driving the motor cycle in question. The appellant has further admitted that he had seen the bus coming from a long distance. It is not material whether the appellant had seen the bus from a distance of 400 to 500 feet or a somewhat smaller distance. The appellant has also admitted that he did not hold a driving licence for driving the motor cycle in question. The appellant has further admitted that he had seen the bus coming from a long distance. It is not material whether the appellant had seen the bus from a distance of 400 to 500 feet or a somewhat smaller distance. In any case even if we accept the version of the appellant that he had seen the bus coming at a distance of 500 feet, then that is all the more reason for him to have taken greater care and caution while entering the highway from the minor road. Furthermore, the damage sustained by the bus as a result of the accident clearly indicates that the motor cycle had hit the bus near the front left wheel and there was no damage to the bus on its front right hand side. Thus, the version put forward by the claimant-appellant is obviously incorrect. The site of the damage indicated that the version of the bus driver must be accepted. 4. It cannot be gainsaid that the bus could not have been driven at an excessive speed in view of the fact that the last bus-stop where it had started from was only at the distance of 700 to 750 feet from the site of the accident. Under the circumstances the driver of the bus would not have had an opportunity of reaching the safe speed at which a bus could be driven on a highway. Even otherwise, the road junction where the accident took place is not at a deserted spot and there is a bazaar on the main road of the Palitana-Songadh Road which is fairly close-by. There are also societies close to the road junction. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the driver of the bus when he states that he was driving his bus in the second gear. If this statement of the bus driver is accepted, it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was, in any view of the matter, driving the bus at an excessive speed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is obvious that it was the appellant motor-cyclist who hit the bus and not vice versa. If this statement of the bus driver is accepted, it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was, in any view of the matter, driving the bus at an excessive speed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is obvious that it was the appellant motor-cyclist who hit the bus and not vice versa. Looking to the fact that he was approaching the highway from a minor road and also looking to the fact that he had no driving licence, we have no hesitation in confirming the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was the appellant-applicant who was entirely responsible for the accident. In view of this finding we are bound to uphold the ultimate conclusion and finding of the Tribunal and are also required to confirm the dismissal of the claim. Appeal dismissed.