P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), S. 60 (2)‑Driver of stage carriage of company failing to give right of way to approaching vehicle‑R. T. A. suspending permit after coming to conclusion that stage carriage violated rule of road and thus driven recklessly‑No interference in appeal. Muhammad Siddiq for Appellant. Secretary, R. T. A., Lahore for Respondent. The stage carriage belonging to the appellant Company did not give way, as it was required to do by the rule of road, for a considerable distance to an approaching vehicle. On that ground the one `B' part of the appellant Company was suspended for a period of 15 days by the R. T. A., Lahore. It was vehemently argued that the driver of the stage carriage has already been convicted and in any case the appellant company is not liable for the action of the driver. This contention is untenable as would appear from R.O. A. Nos. 10 and 7 of 1956‑

57. The only other point urged at the time of arguments was that it was not possible for the driver to give way because the road was slippery. This is in contradiction of a part of the previous arguments of the appellant company because if the driver had not committed any breach of the rule, he could not have been convicted. It would be extremely dangerous to accept the contention that the rule of the road that right of way should be given to an approaching vehicle is suspended when the road is wet. Even when the road is wet, there is no difficulty in giving right of way to an approaching vehicle if the speed of the vehicle concerned is reduced so that it may not skid if it has to go on the Kacha portion of the road. The only other point urged at the time of arguments was that the R. T. A. has not given any reason for suspension of the permit and this is in contravention of section 60, subsection (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The order of the R. T. A. shows that they took up consideration of item No. 23, in which the nature of offence was also given. It is mentioned there that "Did not give way to pass for five miles i.e., from mile stones Nos. 9 to 14 i.e. recklessly driving." The decision to suspend the permit is given below this statement. The two taken together leave no doubt in my mind that the Authority suspended the permit for the reason that the stage carriage violated the rule of the road and was thus driven recklessly. It is well known that a large number of accidents take place on account of violation of the rule of the road involved in the present case. Valuable lives are lost in such accidents. That being so, the period of suspension for 15 days is totally inadequate and is increased to one month. On being questioned the appellant could not give any satisfactory reason why it should not be increased. The result is that the appeal is dismissed and the period of suspension is increased as indicated above. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.