Supreme Court Upholds Appeal by State Road Transport Corporation in Motor Accident Compensation Case Involving Contributory Negligence. Rule 331 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, Requiring Loads Not to Protrude Laterally, Applied to Transport of Rear Dumper on Trailer, and Breach Thereof Constituted Negligence.

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a motor accident that occurred on 6 May 1987 at about 10:30 p.m. on the Bangalore-Mysore road. A bus owned by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, carrying passengers, collided with a truck trailer coming from the opposite direction. The trailer was carrying a rear dumper, a heavy earth-moving machine weighing 25 tonnes and 15 feet wide, while the trailer was only 12 feet wide, causing the dumper to protrude one and a half feet on each side. The road was 24 feet wide with mud shoulders, and the truck was moving slowly at about 5 km/h while the bus was speeding. After the collision, the bus travelled 150 feet, hit a tree, and overturned. Four passengers died and two were injured. The bus driver also died. Six claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, seeking compensation for the deaths and injuries. The Tribunal held that the bus driver alone was negligent and rejected the contention of negligence on the part of the truck driver. The Karnataka High Court Division Bench, hearing appeals against the Tribunal's awards, affirmed this finding, placing emphasis on the truck's slow speed and correct side of the road. The Corporation then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core issues before the Supreme Court were whether the truck driver was also negligent by transporting the dumper in contravention of Rule 331 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, which prohibits lateral projection of loads beyond the vehicle's body; whether a notification dated 7 March 1987 under Rule 341 exempted the carriage; and how liability should be apportioned between the two drivers. The appellant Corporation contended that though the bus driver was negligent, the truck driver had contributed to the accident by carrying the protruding dumper in breach of Rule 331, without permission under Rule 331(3), and without marking the protrusion with red lights or reflectors. Therefore, liability should be joint and several and apportioned. The insurer of the truck trailer argued that there was no evidence of lateral projection, that the truck driver had taken precautions with red lights and flags, and that the truck was proceeding slowly and on the correct side. The Supreme Court noted that the notification under Rule 341 applied only to the plying of empty dumpers on public roads, not to their transport on trailers. The Court found that the dumper projected one and a half feet on each side of the trailer, which was a clear contravention of Rule 331(2). No permission under Rule 331(3) had been obtained. Although the truck was moving slowly, it still occupied thirteen and a half feet of the road width due to the protrusion. The Court rejected the insurer's claim of red lights and flags, as the mahazar and FIR did not mention them. The Court reasoned that but for the protrusion, the vehicles might have passed safely; the speeding bus hit the protruding dumper, and the subsequent collision with a tree was a consequence. The Court relied on Rouse v. Squires for the principle that a driver who creates an obstruction can be held negligent even if another driver fails to avoid it due to speed or lookout. The Supreme Court held that the truck driver was also negligent, and his negligence contributed to the accident. The Court rejected the insurer's submissions and found breach of Rule 331. The Court indicated that liability should be apportioned between the bus driver and the truck driver, but the precise apportionment is not stated in the provided excerpt.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court held that the truck driver was also negligent because the dumper protruded one and a half feet on each side of the trailer in contravention of Rule 331(2), no permission under Rule 331(3) was obtained, and the protrusion was not marked by red lights or reflectors; the notification under Rule 341 did not apply. The Court found that the bus driver's negligence was not the sole cause and that liability must be apportioned, but the exact apportionment is not present in the extracted text.

Law Points