STATE OF KERALAversusE.T.ROSE LYND & ORS.

                  [2012) 1 S.C.R. 1001


                   STATE OF KERALA                              A
                             v.
                 E.T.ROSE LYND & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 2229 of 2012)

                   FEBRUARY 22, 2012
                                                                B
        [R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

     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.

     An accident occurred on a national highway in which
a motorcycle dashed against the rear side of a stationary       F
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
  Government to take steps for construction of Bus Bays
8
  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.

        Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

D      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 night hit behind
vehicles remaining parked on road' and 'inspite of
                                                            0
repeated accidents, no steps are seen taken by the Police
 or Motor Vehicle authorities to seize or remove such
 parked vehicles from roads which can prevent accidents'
are founded on general impressions. No material was
available on record to support such observations. E
 Howsoever well meaning the directions may be, yet in
 the absence of complete facts and materials, the exercise
 undertaken by the High Court was uncalled for and not
 necessary. As regards directions 3 and 5, certain
 aspects which were needed to be adverted to were not
 at all adverted to by the High Court. It was important to F
 have regard to the aspect, whether it was at all feasible
 to construct the Bus Bays and make the roads double
 lane or four lane when these roads pass through major
 cities, towns and thickly populated areas. The financial
 aspect viz., the cost of land acquisition and the cost of G
 construction of Bus Bays throughout the State's National
 Highways and other roads was also required to be kept
  in mind. None of these aspects were examined by the
  High Court. Directions 3 and 5 suffer from serious flaw
                                                           H
     1004    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A and cannot be sustained. [Paras 10-12] [1007-F-H; 1008-
  A-E, G]
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2229 of 2012.

8       From the Judgment & Order dated 17.09.2008 of the High
    Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in M.F.A. No. 66 of 2003.
        Ramesh Babu M.R., Shekhar Prasad Gupta for the
    Appellant.
C       B.V. Deepak, Dilip Pillai, T.T.K. Deepak & Co., A.
    Venayagam for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. The State of Kerala through its Chief Secretary is in
D appeal, by special leave, aggrieved by certain directions given
  by the High Court of Kerala in its order dated September 17,
  2008.
          3. A certain P.C. Krishnakumar was travelling on the pillion
E   of a motorcycle bearing registration No. KRH-7599 which was
    ridden by Thomas John (respondent No. 2 herein) along
    Koimbatore-Palakkadu National Highway (East to West). On
    reaching Puthusserichellakkadu, the motorcycle dashed against
    the rear side of a stationary lorry which was parked at the
F   national highway. The parking lights of the stationary lorry were
    not switched on and as a result of the impact Krishnakumar
    sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to those injuries
    on way to Palakkadu District Hospital. Legal heirs of the
    deceased Krishnakumar, who are respondent Nos. 3 to 5
    herein, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims
G   Tribunal, Artingal (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking compensation
    for the accidental death of Krishnakumar. In the claim petition,
    they alleged that the accident occurred due to the composite
    negligence of the owner, driver and insurer (respondents Nos.
    8, 9 and 10 herein) of the truck as well as the respondent No.
H   2 who was riding the motorcycle.
   STATE OF KERALA v. E.T.ROSE LYND & ORS.                  1005
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

     4. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on            A
record, passed an award on June 3, 2002 in the sum of Rs.
4,76,500/- with interest at 9% per annum from November 8,
1997 till relisation in favour of the claimants. The liabil:ty was
apportioned in the award as the accident was found to have
occurred due to composite negligence of the two vehicles. The        B
details of the liability are not relevant.
     5. Aggrieved by the award, the present respondent Nos.
1 and 2 (owner and rider of the motorcycle) preferred appeal
before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court proposed to
issue some general directions to the State of Kerala and,            C
accordingly, directed its impleadment through its Chief
Secretary as respondent No. 9 in the appeal. The Division
Bench of the High Court, on hearing the parties, issued the
following general directions in its order dated September 17,
2008 :-                                                              D
     "1) We direct the Government to issue instruction to the
     Police particularly handling Traffic and the Motor Vehicles
     Department to seize and remove vehicles seen parked on
     National Highways, State Highways and other important
     roads, whether during day time or during night, and release     E
     such vehicles only on collecting heavy fine in accordance
     with law besides prosecuting the drivers.
     2) The Government should direct Police and Motor
     Vehicles Department to ensure that goods vehicles
                                                                     F
     particularly, container lorries with unusual dimensions are
     operated on road with proper indicator lights, reflectors,
     etc. on all sides during day time and night so that drivers
     of other vehicles get an idea about the size and dimension
     of such vehicles and the care they have to take to avoid        G
     accidents. In fact, having regard to the unusual size of
     container trucks, the Government should consider roads
     in which they can be permitted to operate and narrow
     single line roads where they should not be permitted and
     orders should be issued and enforced restricting their
                                                                     H
     movement.
    1006     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A        3) Large number of accidents take place on account of
         stopping/parking of stage carriages on road for taking and
         releasing passengers. This should be prohibited by
         constructing Bus Bays in Bus stops so that stage carriages
         go out of the road and take passengers and release them
B        only on bus bays without affecting road traffic. Since this
         requires time, and expenditure, we direct the Government
         to take steps at the earliest and complete construction of
         Bus Bays on all road-sides in the State through which stage
         carriage operation is permitted, within one year from now.
c        4) Since accidents commonly take place in road
         crossings, there will be direction to the Government to
         instruct PWD and local authorities in charge of the road,
         to construct hump with zeebra marking on the less
         important roads on all road crossings and also provide
D        sign boards wherever required under the Rules, which
         should also be done within a period of one year from now.
         5) Since parking of vehicles on road is prohibited by the
         Rules, the enforcement of which is directed above, there
         will be direction to the Government to provide sufficient
E        parking space for vehicles on road side, if required by
         acquiring land, which should also be done within a time
         frame, even though we do not fix any specific time for this."
         6. While giving the above directions, the High Court further
F   observed that in order to ensure the compliance, Registry shall
    post the matter every three months for the Government to report
    periodical steps taken for compliance. The first report of the
    Government was required to be filed by January 1, 2009.
       7. The State of Kerala is aggrieved by the directions 3 and
G 5 quoted above. By direction 3, the High Court has directed
  the State 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 has been directed
H to provide sufficient parking space for vehicles on road side, if
   STATE OF KERALA v. E.T.ROSE LYND & ORS.                  1007
               [R.M. LODHA, J.]

required by acquiring land, which should also be done within a        A
time frame, although no time frame was fixed by the Court.
     8. The High Court heavily relied upon Section 118 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and Rule 15(2)(iv)
of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 (for short, '1989
Regulations') prescribed by the Central Government.                   B

      9. Section 118 of the 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         C
the 1989 Regulations. 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
 and if the manner of parking is indicated by any sign board or
                                                                      0
 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 set out in clauses (i) to (xi).
 The High Court relied upon clause (iv) which provides that a         E
 driver of a motor vehicle shall not park his vehicle in a main
 road or one carrying fast traffic.
     10. We are afraid, the directions given by the High Court,
particularly directions 3 and 5 with which the Government of          F
Kerala is aggrieved, could not have been issued. First, the
provisions aforenoted upon which the High Court placed
reliance hardly justified the above directions. Second, 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 not to have been given         G
in such proceeding. Third, the facts which are 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 containers with their dull colours may not be visible from
                                                                      H
     1008    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A  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 night hit behind vehicles remaining parked
   on road' and 'inspite of repeated accidents, no steps are seen
   taken by the Police or Motor Vehicle authorities to seize or
B remove such parked vehicles from roads which can prevent
   accidents' are founded on general impressions. No material
  is available on record to support such observations.
  Howsoever well meaning the directions may be, yet in the
  absence of complete facts and materials, the exercise
c undertaken by the High Court was uncalled for and not
  necessary. Fourth, as regards directions 3 and 5, we find that
  certain aspects which were needed to be adverted to have not
  at all been adverted to by the High Court. It was important to
  have regard to the aspect, whether it was at all feasible to
  construct the Bus Bays and make the roads double lane or four
0
  lane when these roads pass through major cities, towns and
  thickly populated areas. The financial aspect viz., the cost of
  land acquisition and the cost of construction of Bus Bays
  throughout the State's National Highways and other roads was
  also required to be kept in mind. None of these aspects has
E been examined by the High Court.
       11. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., learned counsel for the
  appellant - State of Kerala, submits that the State Government
  has accepted directions 1, 2 and 4 and implemented the same
F although a ground has been taken that such directions ought
  not to have been issued. In view of this, we do not intend to
  say anything about directions 1, 2 and 4.
       12. In view of the above, we are satisfied that directions 3
  and 5 suffer from serious flaw and cannot be sustained. We
G set aside directions 3 and 5 accordingly.
         13. The Appeal is allowed to the extent above with no order
    as to costs.

    D.G.                                    Appeal partly allowed.
H