KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus K.V. SAKEENA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 440 · Decided: 15-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
B 
v. 
K.V. SAKEENA & ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 15, 1996 
(S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/Kamataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 196~Sec
tion 168-Rule 331-Contributory Negligence-collision between bus and 
truck-Bus driven at a high speed-Truck mounted with a dumper extending 
C beyond the width of the truck-Dumper not properly marked or ii-
) 
luminated-Held, negligence of the truck driver contributed to the acci-
dent-Law of Torts. 
Four persons died and two injured \\hen the bus of the appellant 
D Corporation collided with the truck of respondent No. 1. The bus driver 
was driving the bus at a very high speed at 10.30 p.m. and collided with 
the dumper mounted on the truck trailer. Subsequent to the collision the 
bus moved 150 feet, collided with a tree and turned turtle. 
The road on which the accident took place was 24 feet wide and had 
E 8 feet wide mud shoulders on either side. The truck trailer was 12 feet wide 
while the dumper mounted on it was 15 feet wide. Thus, the dumper 
protruded one and a half feet on either side of the truck. The dumper 
weighed 25 tonnes and it had come in evidence that the dumper was not 
marked out with red lights or reflectors. It had also come in evidence that 
F while the bus was speeding, the truck was travelling at a speed of 5 km. 
per hour. 
Rule 331(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 prohibits 
the driving of any vehicle with a load in such a manner that the load or 
any part thereof or anything extends laterally beyond the side of the body 
G unless permission is granted therefor under Rule 331(3) of the Karnataka 
Motor Vehicles Rules. The owner of the truck had not obtained any 
permission under Rule 331(3) or the Rules. 
The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded compensation to the 
H aggrieved persons holding only the driver of the bus to be negligent. The 
440 
• -. 
~ 
,._,. 
• 
I 
, 
KARNATAKA STATE ROADTPT. CORPN. '·KV. SAKEENA (BHARUCHA,J.] 
441 
High Court concurred with the opinion of the Tribunal and dismissed the A 
appeal of the appellant. 
The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court in 
which it contended that the truck driver was also negligent and therefore, 
the respondent too was liable to contribute to the compensation awarded B 
by the Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. While there is no doubt about the negligence of the bus 
driver and his contribution to the cause of the accident, the driver of c 
the truck cannot be absolved. He was driving late at night a truck trailer 
which bore upon it very heavy machinery that protruded one and a half 
feet on either side of the bed of the trailer and the protrusion was not 
clearly marked out by red lights or reflectors thereon for oncoming 
vehicles to plainly notice. The carriage of the dumper upon the trailer D 
in this manner was in ·breach of Rule 331 of the Karnataka Motor 
Vehicles Rules, 1963. The sum total of this is, plainly, negligence. It 
constituted a danger to other road users, and it made no difference that 
those road nsers, like the bus driver, were driving fast. The negligence 
of the driver of the truck must necessarily be held to have contributed E 
to the causation of the accident. [445-C-D; 448-B-C] 
2. Though the negligence of the truck driver certainly contributed to 
the accident, the proportion in which he contributed can not be said to be 
equal to the contribution of the bus driver. The proportion of negligence F 
should be 60 per cent that the bus driver and 40 per cent that of the driver 
of the truck trailer. Had the former not been speeding he would have 
noticed the bulk upon the trailer and kept prudently away. [448-D-E] 
Rouse v. Squires and Others, [1973] All E.R. 903, relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 101 of 
1992 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.90 of the Karnataka 
High Court in M.F.A. No. 37/90 with M.F.A. No. 2419 of 1990. 
H 
442 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS 
(1996) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
S.S. Javali and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants. 
B 
G. Prakash, K.N. Bhargava and Ms. Beena Prakash for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHARUCHA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the 
judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. 
The Division Bench was hearing appeals against three judgments 
delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, arising 
C upon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.