Holding

The truck driver’s negligence in contravention of Rule 331 contributed to the accident, making him liable for 40% of the compensation, jointly and severally with the bus operator.

Summary

A bus operated by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation collided at night with a truck trailer carrying a heavy rear dumper that protruded one and a half feet beyond the trailer's sides. The bus driver was speeding, while the truck driver was moving slowly, but the dumper was not marked with red lights or reflectors, violating Rule 331 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court held only the bus driver negligent, denying any liability on the truck driver. On special leave, the Supreme Court found that the truck driver’s failure to comply with Rule 331 constituted negligence that contributed to the accident. The Court apportioned liability 60% to the bus driver and 40% to the truck driver, holding the truck’s owner, driver and insurer jointly and severally liable for that share. Consequently, the corporation was entitled to recover 40% of the compensation already paid. The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the lower courts' orders on the truck’s liability.

Issues considered

The truck driver’s conduct violated Rule 331 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules by allowing a load to extend laterally without proper marking.
Whether the truck driver’s negligence contributed to the accident and, if so, the appropriate apportionment of liability between the bus driver and the truck driver.
Whether the notification under Rule 341 concerning the dumper’s use applied to its carriage on a truck trailer.
The effect of the truck’s insurance policy on the liability for the contributory negligence.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

contributory negligencemotor vehicle accidentload overhangroad safetyjoint and several liabilityapportionment of damagesKarnataka Motor Vehicles RulesRule 331

Judgment

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

MARCH 15, 1996

B (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
by the Tribunal.
B

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
i'
'
442 SUPREME COURTREPORTS (1996) 3 S.C.R.

A S.S. Javali and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants.

G. Prakash, K.N. Bhargava and Ms. Beena Prakash for the Respon-
dents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
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 six claim petitions. Four claim petitions were filed to recover
compensation for the death of four persons and two for injuries sustained.
The four deceased and two injured persons were passengers in a bus
owned by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the appel-
lant, when it was involved in an accident at 10.30 p.m. on 6th May, 1987,
D on the Bangalore-Mysore road. The accident occurred when the bus hit
a truck trailer coming from the opposite direction. Upon the trailer was
mounted a rear dumper. (The rear dumper is a vehicle used to carry and
dump earth from its rear end.) Subsequent to the collision, the bus moved
150 feet, collided with a tree on the left of the road and turned turtle.
E The bus driver was among those who died. The Tribunal came to the
conclusion that it was the bus driver alone who was negligent. It rejected
the contention that there was any negligence on the part of driver of the
the truck. Before the High Court, as before us, it was not in dispute that
the driver of the bus was negligent, but it was canvassed on behalf of the
Corporation that the driver of the truck had by his negligence contributed
F lo the accident and that the liability to pay compensation was joint and
several and should be apportioned in accordance with the degree of their
respective negligence. The High Court found against the Corporation.

The road upon which the accident took place was straight. It was
G 24 feet wide and on either side had mud shoulders approximately 8 feet
wide. The truck trailer was 12 feet wide. The dumper upon it was 15 feet
wide so that it protruded beyond the width of the trailer by one and a
half feet on either side. The dumper weighed 25 tonnes. The truck was
travelling slowly, at .a speed of about 5 kms. per hour. The bus, coming
H in the opposite direction, was speeding.
t
I
KARNATAKASfATEROADTPT. CORPN. '· K.Y. SAKEENA(BHARUCHA,J.J 443

Reliance was placed before the High Court and before this Court A
upon a notification dated 7th March, 1987, issued by the Government of
Karnataka under the provisions of Rule 341 of the Karnataka Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1963. The notification permitted the Haulpak 35T Rear-
Dumpers described in its Schedule belonging to Mis. Bharat Earth
Movers Limited to ply in public places subject to the conditions therein B
stated. The Schedule mentioned the serial, chassis, engine and transmis-
sion numbers of six Haulpak 35 T Rear Dumpers. The conditions also
indicated that the notification applied to the plying of the dumpers
themselves upon public roads and· not to their carriage upon other
vehicles; as for example, the first condition said that only an empty vehicle C
should be transported and it should not carry any load over and above
its own weight. We agree with the High Court that this notification had
no application to the transport of the dumper on the truck trailer which
was involved in the accident.

D
Learned counsel for the Corporation then drew our attention to
Rule 331 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963. We must say that
it does not appear that this rule was pointed out to the High Court. The
rule provides for the protection of loads on motor vehicles. Sub rule (2)
thereof states, "No person shall drive, and no person shall cause or allow
to be driven, in a public place any motor vehicle which is loaded in a E
manner likely to cause danger to any person or in such a manner that
the load or any part thereof or anything extends : (i) laterally beyond the
side of the body or beyond the vehicle plane in prolongation of the side
of the body.......". The dumper, as the Tribunal has recorded upon the
basis of evidence, protruded on either side of the truck to an extent of F
one and a half feet. The manner in which the dumper was being
transported was, therefore, in clear contravention of the rule. It could
have been so transported only with permission, and subject to such
conditions as were specified, under sub-rule 3 of Rule 331, which reads
~: G

"(3) The District Magistrate with the concurrence of the
Regional Transport Authority may be order in writing exempt any
motor vehicle for such purpose and for such period, and subject
to such conditions as may be specified from any or all of the H
~
I

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A provisions of this rule."

No such permission was brought on record.

The High Court and the Tribunal placed great emphasis on the fact
that the truck was being driven very slowly and on the correct side of
B the road. Considering that it was carrying a weight of 25 tonnes, the truck
could not have proceeded other than very slowly. It will be remembered
that the trailer was 12 feet wide and the dumper protruded on either side
by one and a half feet. Even assuming, therefore, that the truck was being
)
driven on the extreme left of tarred road, it was occupying thirteen and
C a half feet of its twenty-four foot width, and for this purpose we assume
that the one and a half foot over-hang of the dumper on the left was
over the mud shoulder. It will also be remembered that the accident
occurred at 10.30 p.m., which would mean that both the bus and the truck
had their headlights on. The Tribunal has held that "the bus driver was
D not justified in hitting the bulldozer. .. ". It appears, therefore, that what
the bus hit was the protruding portion of the dumper. The effect of a
speeding bus hitting the protrusion of equipment that weighs 25 tonnes
is not difficult to imagine.

The evidence of the driver of the truck is that he had put red lights
E
and flags on either side of the truck trailer. The claimants' witnesses do
not speak of the existence of red lights or flags. The Mahazer and the
FIR also do not mention them. It appears to us that, but for the
protrusion of the dumper from the bed of the trailer, the bus and the
truck would have safely passed by each other. The protrusion of the
F dumper beyond the bed of the trailer was, clearly, not highlighted. Given,
the glare of blazing headlights, the bus driver, at the speed at which he
was travelling, did realise that there was a protrusion beyond the bed of
the trailer as massive as of a dumper and collided with it. The collision,
necessarily, had grave consequences. The driver, sitting at the very front
G of the right of the bus, would have taken the full impact and may well
have died on the spot. It is, at any rate, more then likely that he would
have been rendered unconscions or incapacitated and that the progress
of the bus 150 feet thereafter until it hit the tree was unguided.

H The High Court noted that the front of the bns had been badly
KARNATAKASTATEROADTPT. CORPN. v. K.V.SAKEENA[BHARUCHA,J.[ 445

damaged as a result of its collision with the tree. It noted that a report A
" )i before it spoke of a side panel of the bus and its supporting angles being
torn, but it commented on the fact that the report did not say that it was
the side panel on the right hand side of the bus. If in this accident a side
panel of the bus was torn, there can be no doubt that it was the right hand
side panel for it was the right hand side of the bus which came into contact B
with the dumper on the truck trailer. It may well be that some or even many
of the injuries sustained by the passengers of the bus were the result of its
collision with the tree, but it cannot be forgotten that its collision with the
tree was the consequence of its earlier collision with the dumper upon the
truck trailer.
c
In the circumstances, while there is no doubt about the negligence
of the bus driver and his contribution to the cause of the accident, the
driver of 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 D
·clearly marked cnt by red lights or reflectors thereon for oncoming vehicles
to plainly notice. The carriage of the dumper upon the trailer in this
manner was in breach of Rule 331 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules,
1963. In our view, the sum total of this is, plainly negligence.

Learned counsel for the insurer of the truck trailer submitted that E
there was no evidence to show that the dumper had projected laterally
from the bed of the trailer. We have already drawn attention to the fact
that the Tribunal has so held; in its words : "As admitted by R W 1 lorry
driver, width for the buUdozer was 15' width of the lorry was 12 feet, and
on either side of edges of lorry bulldozer was protruding to an extent of F
one and a half feet." It was submitted that the driver of the truck trailer
bad taken all precautions by way of showing red lights and flags. Here also
we have drawn attention to the evidence. In this regard the Tribunal had
this to say : "RW 1 is .said to have rushed to the spot and prepared the
sketch as per Ex.R 2 and he is said to have not found any flags fixed on
the protruded portion of the bulldozer carried in the lorry. This fact is G
disputed by RW 1. He states that he had kept red lights and flags on either
side of the lorry. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner
ever speak about existence of red flags or lights. Mahazar does not make
anything clear about the existence of red lights or flags either side of the
lorry. Similarly, F1R does not say about existence of such flags or red H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A lights." We are, therefore, unable to accept these submissions on behalf of
the insurer of the truck trailer.

The question then arises as to the proportion in which the driver of
the bus the driver of the truck contributed, by reason of their negligence,
to the accident and how the liability to the claimants should be apportioned
B between them.

Learned counsel for the Corporation drew our attention to the
judgment of the Court of Appeal in Rouse v. Squires and Others, (1973)
All England Law Reports 903. These were the facts : At about 10.30 p.m.
C on a frosty night Allen was driving an articulated lorry along a motor-way
when, because of his negligence, it skidded, 'jack-knifed' and ended up
blocking the slow and centre lanes of the carriageway. A car travelling
behind collided with the lorry. Its rear lights remained on. Rouse saw the
accident and drove his lorry safely past. He then parked and returned to
D render help. Another lorry, driven by Franklin, pulled up some 15 feet
short of Allen's lorry. Franklin left his headlights on purposely to illuminate
the broken down lorry. Finally, some five to ten minutes after the original
accident, squires arrived on the scene driving his employer's lorry at a fast
speed. He did not realise, when he first saw the vehicles some 400 yards
away, that they were stationary and that two lanes of the carriageway were
E obstructed. Eventually, at a distance of some 150 yards he applied his
brakes but, because of the frosty surface, he· skidded. His lorry collided
with the rear of Franklin's lorry and pushed it forward with the result that
it knocked Rouse down and caused him fatal injuries. Rouse's widow
obtained damages against Squires in respect of his negligent driving and,
F in third party proc~edings, Squires claimed contribution from Allen and
his employers in respect of Allen's negligence. The trial judge dismissed
the claim holding that Squires was wholly to blame for the accident since
the broken down lorry was adequately lighted and, if Squires had kept a
proper look-out, he would have seen it some 400 yards away thereby giving
himself sufficient time to take avoiding action. Squires appealed. Cairns,
G Ll observed :

"If a driver so negligently manages his vehicle as to cause it to
obstruct the highway and constitute a danger to other road users, including,
those who are driving too fast or not keeping a proper look-out, but not
H those who deliberately or recklessly drive into the obstruction, then the first
KARN ATAKA STATE ROADTI'T. CORPN. '·KV. SAKBENA [BHARUCHA, J.) 447

driver's negligence may be held to have contributed to the causation of an A
accident of which the immediate cause was the negligent driving of the
vehicle which because of the presence of the obstruction collides with it or
with some other vehicle or some other person. Accordingly, I would hold
in this case that Mr. Allen's negligence did contribute to the death of Mr.
Rouse.
B
xxx xxx xxxx

I look at the situation in this way. Of course we do not know exactly
what happened to Mr. Allen's lorry; but there was nothing to
suggest that he had any emergency ·situation to face. For some C
reason he had simply lost control of his vehicle, presumably by
driving too fast on a frosty road or by unwisely applying his brakes.
Mr. Squires has been held by the learned judge (and I do not query
this part of his finding) to have been extremely negligent in that,
in addition to driving too fast, he failed to keep a proper look-out.
But it can be said of him that he did not initiate the dangerous D
situation but failed to take adequate steps to cope with a situation
that already existed. Through that failure he must be held to be
the person mainly responsible for this calamity. In my view the
right proportion of blame which should be put on his shoulders is
75 per cent as against 25 per cent on Mr. Allen." E
Mackenna, J. agreed, and said :

"On these facts I would hold that Mr. Allen's negligence con-
tributed to cause the fatal collision between Mr. Squires and Mr.
Franklin. His driving in such a way that his lorry ended up across p
two lanes of the roadway was negligent because of the risk it
created for other vehicles travelling in the same direction. The risk
was that these other vehicles might collide with the lorry or might
cause or suffer damage in seeking to avoid such a collision. Though
this risk was diminished when the head-lights of Mr. Franklin's
lorry were focused on the trailer, it still existed to a substantial G
degree, and because of it Mr. Squires collided with Mr. Franklin's
lori:y. The case might have been different if there had been no
connection between Mr. Allen's negligent driving and the fatal
collision except that it had caused Mr. Franklin to stop where he
~ H
~\
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A Buckley, LJ also agreed, holding that there was no break in the chain of
causation between Allen's negligence and the accident.

We are in agreement with the observations of Cairns, LJ.

The driver of the truck trailer managed it in a way which caused it
B to occupy atleast thirteen and a half feet of the twenty-four foot wide tarred
highway. He carried upon the trailer at the dead of night a massive
protrusion which was not clearly marked out. It constituted a danger to
other road user's and it made no difference that those road users, like the
bus driver, were driving fast. The negligence of the driver of the truck must
C necessarily be held to have contributed to the causation of the accident, by
which we mean not only the collision of the bus with the protrusion upon
the truck trailer but also its later collision with the tree. The chain of events
began with the bus hitting the dumper projecting from the bed of the trailer
outward onto the width of the road and ended with its collision with the
tree. But for the former collision the latter collision would not have
D occured. The negligence of the truck driver certainly contributed to the
accident, but we do not think that the proportion in which he contributed
can be said to be equal to the contribution of the bus driver, which is the
submission made in the pleadings of the Corporation before this Court. In
our view, the proportion of negligence should be 60 per cent that of the
E 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.

Learned counsel for the insurer of the truck trailer submitted that
the conditions of its insurance policy were breached by reason of the
F negligence of its driver. He also submitted that, in any event, the insurer
of the truck trailer could not be made liable for any amount beyond that
provided under the Motor Vehicle Act. Although the plea of the con-
tributory negligence of the driver of the truck was taken before the
Tribunal, the aforesaid contentions were not raised and the insurance
G policy covering the truck trailer was not brought on record. It is, therefore,
not possible to accede to either of·the submissions aforestated.

We find that in the claim petitions that were decided by the Tribunal
on 30th Octoter, 1988 (out of which M.F.A. Nos. 141and142of1989 arose
before the High Court and Civil Appeals 102 and 103 of 1992 arise before
H this Court) the Corporation had led no evidence at all. In those matters
KARN ATAKA STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. '·KV. SAKEENA (BHARUCHA,J.) 449

the liability to pay compensation must remain exclnsively that of the A
Corporation.

In the result, Civil Appeals 101, 104, 105 and 106 of 1992 are allowed.
The judgment and order under these appeals is set aside insofar as it holds
that the owner, driver and insurer of the truck trailer were not responsible
for payment of any part of the compensation awarded. The.owner, driver B
and insurer of the truck trailer are held to be liable, jointly and severally,
to pay 40 per cent of the compensation. Having regard to the fact that the
compensation has already been paid by the Corporation, the Corporation
shall be entitled to recover 40 per cent thereof from the owner, driver and
insurer of the truck trailer. c
Civil Appeals 102 and 103 of 1992 are dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs in all the Civil Appeals.

J.N.S. Appeal dismissed.