1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2229      OF 2012  (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12480 of 2009)

STATE OF KERALA                            Appellant(s)

                       VERSUS

E.T.ROSE LYND & ORS.                       Respondent(s)

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

R.M. LODHA  , J.   

Leave granted.

2. The  State  of  Kerala  through  its  Chief  

Secretary  is  in  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 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 national highway.  The parking lights of the  

stationary lorry were not switched on and as a result of the

2

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 Tribunal, Attingal (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. 2 who  

was riding the motorcycle.

4. The  Tribunal,  on  consideration  of  the  

evidence on 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 liability was apportioned in the award as the accident  

was found to have occurred due to composite negligence of  

the  two  vehicles.  The  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,  

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

3

following general directions in its order dated September  

17, 2008 :-

“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  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  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 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 movement.

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  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.

4

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 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  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  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 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 to provide sufficient  

parking space for vehicles on road side, if required by

5

acquiring land, which should also be done within 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.   

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  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  

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 driver of a motor vehicle shall not  

park  his  vehicle  in  a  main  road  or  one  carrying  fast  

traffic.

6

10. We  are  afraid,  the  directions  given  by  the  High  

Court,  particularly  directions  3  and  5  with  which  the  

Government  of  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 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 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  

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  

undertaken  by  the  High  Court  was  uncalled  for  and  not

7

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 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 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 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 set aside directions 3 and 5  accordingly.

13. The Appeal is allowed to the extent above with no  

order as to costs.

8

........................J. (R.M. LODHA)

NEW DELHI; ..........................J. FEBRUARY 22, 2012 (H.L. GOKHALE)