BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal, award of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Bhopal, dated 25. 10. 1994, passed in Claim Case No. 103 of 1993, has been challenged. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, Latha Kumaran (the claimant) was a nurse in Bharat Heavy electricals Ltd. (BHEL) Hospital, Bhopal. On 12. 6. 1991 she was being taken to hospital by ambulance No. MKC 299 at 11. 30 p. m. by Vedpal Bhasin (driver ). The ambulance was going on the main road from sector A to Sector B. When it reached at intersection near Piplani Police Station, the vehicle No. MPP 3655 of Police Department came from side road resulting in collision of both the vehicles. As a result of this accident, the front portion of ambulance and the side portion between front and rear wheels of the police vehicle were damaged. The claimant suffered injuries to her spinal cord and became paralytic. ( 3 ) THE claimant filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 7,40,000 alleging, inter alia, that both the drivers were liable for the accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The claimant suffered spinal cord dislocation of C-6 and C-7 (cervical bones ). Initially, she was treated at Kasturba Hospital at Bhopal. Thereafter, she was taken to Bombay Hospital, where she remained for a year from 13. 6. 1991. She was receiving salary of Rs. 2,470 per month. She was 23 years old and in course of time, she had prospects of earning promotions as nurse grade-I, senior sister and earn higher emoluments. Because of this accident, she became totally disabled because of quadriplegia. Her lower limbs had become totally flaccid. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS denied the allegation. Both the drivers shifted the responsibility for the accident on each other. The driver of ambulance stated that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the police vehicle because he came on the main road suddenly. On other hand, the driver of police vehicle stated that the driver of ambulance was drunk and was driving the vehicle rashly and that was the cause of accident. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal framed four issues in this case. On other hand, the driver of police vehicle stated that the driver of ambulance was drunk and was driving the vehicle rashly and that was the cause of accident. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal framed four issues in this case. Parties led evidence and the Claims Tribunal recorded finding that both the drivers were driving their vehicles rashly and negligently, therefore, caused accident resulting in injuries to the claimant who has become permanently disabled. Therefore, compensation in the sum of Rs. 7,40,000 has been awarded under various heads carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, apart from cost of the claim petition payable equally by drivers and owners of both the vehicles. ( 6 ) THE present appeal is at the instance of the appellants/state. The claimant has not filed any appeal nor by the owner and driver of the ambulance. ( 7 ) MR. Vivekanand Awasthy, Government Advocate, contends that the award is liable to be set aside because it holds the owner and driver of police vehicle responsible for causing the accident and payment of compensation to the extent of 50 per cent. The submission is that the accident was caused by driver of the ambulance and not by driver of the police vehicle. With a view to bring home the point, the learned counsel refers to the statement of witnesses particularly the driver of police vehicle and the statement of claimant that she did not see the police vehicle arriving from the side road, therefore, it could not be said that the police vehicle was responsible for the accident, as alleged by learned counsel. We are unable to appreciate this submission. By elaborate discussion of evidence and law, the Tribunal has come to clear finding that both the vehicles are responsible for the accident and the degree of negligence of both the drivers is equal. From the evidence on record, it can be found that the ambulance was going on main road while the police vehicle came from side road. The allegation is that police vehicle was not having headlights, appears to be so, otherwise, the driver of police vehicle could see ambulance moving on main road and avoid the accident. From the evidence on record, it can be found that the ambulance was going on main road while the police vehicle came from side road. The allegation is that police vehicle was not having headlights, appears to be so, otherwise, the driver of police vehicle could see ambulance moving on main road and avoid the accident. It is not only a rule but also a practice that vehicle moving on highway has preferential right to use the highway as compared to vehicle coming from side road. Moreover, ambulance and fire brigade vehicles should have priority to use the road as compared to the other vehicles. Had the driver of the police vehicle realised this, he would have stopped the vehicle or slowed the speed of vehicle avoiding accident. Similarly, ambulance driver ought to have been vigilant at an intersection, more so, when it was not carrying emergency patient. The result, therefore, is that both the vehicles are severally negligent for causing accident to an equal extent, therefore, conclusion drawn by Claims Tribunal is absolutely correct and is confirmed. ( 8 ) MR. Vivekanand Awasthy further contends that payment of compensation to the claimant is excessive. We do not think so. It is found that Latha Kumaran was 23 years old at the time of accident. She was a permanent nurse with BHEL Hospital at bhopal. At this age and stage, she was receiving salary of Rs. 2,470 per month. She was due for promotion to nurse grade i and then senior sister. Obviously, she could earn higher emoluments after promotions to higher stages. However, she has been seriously affected by this accident. She has suffered total disablement because of quadriplegia, as such, all the limbs have become non-functional because of paralysis. On the basis of principles laid down in number of decisions recorded by the claims Tribunal in the award and the likely effects of accident in later life, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal in this case is excessive. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this submission and the same is rejected. ( 9 ) WE find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .