STATE OF KERALA versus E.T.ROSE LYND & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 22-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012) 1 S.C.R. 1001 
STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
E.T.ROSE LYND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.118 - Accident claim case -
Award passed by Tribunal - On appeal, High Court passed 
certain directions including directions 3 and 5 relating to 
C 
construction of Bus Bays on all road-sides in the State 
through which stage carriage operation is permitted and to 
provide sufficient parking space for vehicles on road side -
Held: The directions 3 and 5 given by the High Court with 
which the Government of Kera/a is aggrieved, could not have 
D 
been issued in view of Rules of the Road Regulations - High 
Court was hearing an appeal from an award that was confined 
to the grievances raised by the aggrieved party - Such 
general directions of wide ramifications ought not to have been 
given in such proceeding - Moreover, the facts which were 
E 
relevant and germane for issuance of such directions were not 
before the High Court - Directions 3 and 5 set aside - Rules 
of the Road Regulation's, 1989 - Para 15. 
F 
An accident occurred on a national highway in which 
a motorcycle dashed against the rear side of a stationary 
lorry. The pillion rider of the motorcycle died on the spot. 
The legal repres.entatives of the accident victim filed claim 
petition before the MACT. The Tribunal passed an award 
making the owner, driver and insurer of the truck as well 
as respondent no.2 who was riding the motorcycle liable 
G 
to pay' the award. The owner and rider of the motorcycle 
filed appeal before the High Court. The High Court issued 
certain directions to the State of Kerala and accordingly 
1001 
H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A directed its impleadment through its Chief Secretary as 
respondent no.9 in the appeal. 
The State of Kerala was aggrieved by the directions 
3 and 5. By direction 3, the High Court directed the State 
8 Government to take steps for construction of Bus Bays 
on all road-sides in the State through which stage 
carriage operation is permitted within one year from the 
date of the order. By direction 5, the State Government 
was directed to provide sufficient parking space for 
vehicles on road side, if required by acquiring land, which 
C should also be done within a time frame, although no time 
frame was fixed by the Court. 
D 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 118 of the Motor Vehicle Act 
enables the Central Government to make regulations for 
the driving of motor vehicles by issuing notification in the 
Official Gazette. Pursuant to its power under Section 118 
of the Act, the Central Government has prescribed the 
E Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. Para 15 of these 
Regulations deals with the parking of the vehicle. Sub-
para (1) of Para 15 provides that every driver of a motor 
vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that 
it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, 
obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users 
F and if the manner of parking is indicated by any sign 
board or markings on the road side, the driver is required 
to park his vehicle accordingly. Sub-para (2) of Para 15 
is a prohibitory provision whereby a driver of a motor 
vehicle is prohibited not to park his vehicle at the places 
G set out in clauses (i) to (xi). The High Court relied upon 
clause (iv) which provides that a driver of a motor vehicle 
shall not park his vehicle in a main road or one carrying 
fast traffic. [Para 9] [1007-C-E] 
H 
1.2. The directions given by the High Court, 
STATE OF KERALA v. E.T.ROSE LYND & ORS. 
1003 
particularly directions 3 and 5 with which the Government A 
of Kera la is aggrieved, could not have been issued in view 
of Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989. Secondly, the 
High Court was hearing an appeal from an award that 
was confined to the grievances raised by the aggrieved 
party. Such general directions of wide ramifications ought 
B 
not to have been given in such proceeding. Moreover, 
the facts which were relevant and germane for issuance 
of such directions were not before the Court. The 
observations by the Court, 'most of the container trucks 
seen on road are not fitted with proper indicators and the c 
containers with their dull colours may not be visible from 
distance, more so in the night', 'similar accidents of the 
kind stated above are reported in this State on regular 
basis when vehicles driven in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.