Skip to content


Emperor Vs. W.M. Rittoms - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 460 of 1932
Judge
Reported in(1933)35BOMLR483
AppellantEmperor
RespondentW.M. Rittoms
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....19 (1) of the bombay motor vehicles rules, 1915, provides that a motor vehicle shall ordinarily pass a tramcar on the left or near side whether it be going in the same or contrary direction. the rule covers a tramcar which is stationary. the adverb 'ordinarily' denotes that the rule applies except in a case in which there is some impediment to passing the tramcar on the near side, for example the road may be up or there may be a long line of slow moving traffic which would make it impossible to pass the tramear on the near side within a reasonable time. it is no excuse that there are foot-passengers which makes it difficult for him to pass the tramcar on the near side and that there is plenty of room for him to pass it on the right hand side. - indian succession act (39 of 1925),..........in the same direction which should be passed on the right and provided that it should ordinarily pass a tramcar on the left or near side whether it be going in the same or contrary direction.2. in the present case a tramcar normally proceeding in the same direction as the car which the accused was driving was temporarily stationary and people were either getting in or alighting and therefore made it difficult for the accused to pass the car on the near side. although the rule refers to a tramcar whether it be going in the same or in the contrary direction, i think those latter words are not exhaustive and that the rule covers a tramcar which is stationary. the question really is what is the meaning of 'ordinarily.' the accused here says that there were foot-passengers which made it.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, C.J.

1. In this case the accused applies in revision and asks us to interfere with his conviction under Rule 19 (1) of the Bombay-Motor Vehicles Rules, 1915. That rule provides :-

A motor vehicle shall be driven in accordance with the rules of the road which require a vehicle to keep on the left except when passing horses and other vehicles going in the same direction which should be passed on the right and provided that it should ordinarily pass a tramcar on the left or near side whether it be going in the same or contrary direction.

2. In the present case a tramcar normally proceeding in the same direction as the car which the accused was driving was temporarily stationary and people were either getting in or alighting and therefore made it difficult for the accused to pass the car on the near side. Although the rule refers to a tramcar whether it be going in the same or in the contrary direction, I think those latter words are not exhaustive and that the rule covers a tramcar which is stationary. The question really is what is the meaning of 'ordinarily.' The accused here says that there were foot-passengers which made it difficult for him to pass the tramcar on the near side and that there was plenty of room for him to pass it on the right hand side. But I do not think that that is enough to take the ease out of the rule. I think the adverb 'ordinarily' denotes that the rule applies except in a case in which there is some impediment to passing the tramcar on the near side ; for example the road may bo up or there may be a long line of slow moving traffic which would make it impossible to pass the tramcar on the near side within a reasonable time. In the present case the accused had only to slow down, or possibly to stop for a moment or two, in order to avoid running over the people approaching the tramcar. There is no charge against him of negligent driving. The only question is whether he has broken the terms of this rule. It is not, I think, enough for him to say there was no oncoming traffic which would prevent him passing the tramcar on the right hand side. People who know of this rule may walk in front of a stationary tramcar in order to cross the read on the assumption that no traffic will be passing the tramcar on the right hand side, and if this rule is ignored, people in that condition may easily be run over. In the circumstances I think there is no ground on which we can interefere with the conviction by the Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Mazagaon, The application is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //