{"id":122913,"date":"1996-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996"},"modified":"2015-02-22T11:53:28","modified_gmt":"2015-02-22T06:23:28","slug":"karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996","title":{"rendered":"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC  (3) 446, \t  JT 1996 (4)\t 32<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nKARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.V. SAKEENA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/03\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (3) 446\t  JT 1996 (4)\t 32\n 1996 SCALE  (2)845\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t    WITH<br \/>\n  CIVIL APPEAL NO.102\/92, 103\/92, 104\/92, 105\/92 &amp; 106\/92<br \/>\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nBHARUCHA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment<br \/>\nand order  of a\t Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.<br \/>\nThe  Division\tBench  was  hearing  appeals  against  three<br \/>\njudgments delivered  by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\nBangalore, arising  upon six  claim  petitions.\t Four  claim<br \/>\npetitions were\tfiled  to recover compensation for the death<br \/>\nof four\t persons and  two for  injuries sustained.  The four<br \/>\ndeceased and  two injured  persons were\t passengers in a bus<br \/>\nowned by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the<br \/>\nappellant, when it was involved in an accident at 10.30.p.m.<br \/>\non 6th May, 1987, on the Bangalore-Mysore road. The accident<br \/>\noccurred when  the bus\thit a  truck trailer coming from the<br \/>\nopposite direction.  Upon the  trailer was  mounted  a\trear<br \/>\ndumper, (the rear dumper is a vehicle used to carry and dumo<br \/>\nearth from its rear end.) Subsequent to the collies, the bus<br \/>\nmoved 150  feet, collided with a tree on the eft of the road<br \/>\nand turned  turtle. The bus driver was among those who died.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal  came to  the conclusion that it the bus driver<br \/>\nalone who  was negligent.  It rejected\tthe contention\tthat<br \/>\nthere was  any negligency  on the  part of the driver of the<br \/>\ntruck. Before  the High\t Court, as  before us, it was not in<br \/>\ndispute that the driver of the bus was negligent, but it was<br \/>\ncanvassed on  behalf of\t the Corporation  that the driver of<br \/>\nthe truck  had by his negligence contributed to the accident<br \/>\nand that  the liability\t to pay\t compensation was  joint and<br \/>\nseveral and  should be\tapportioned in\taccordance with\t the<br \/>\ndegree of  their respective  negligee. The  High Court found<br \/>\nagainst the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  road\tupon  which  the  accident  took  place\t was<br \/>\nstraight. It  was 24  feet wide\t and on\t either side had mud<br \/>\nshoulders approximately\t 8 feet\t wide. The truck trailer was<br \/>\n12 feet wide. The dumper upon it was 15 feet wide so that it<br \/>\nprotruded beyond  the width of the trailer by one and a half<br \/>\nfeet on either side. The dumper weighed 25 tonnes. The truck<br \/>\nwas travelling\tslowly, at a speed of about 5 kms. per hour.<br \/>\nThe bus, coming in the opposite direction, was speeding.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Reliance was  placed before  the High  Court and before<br \/>\nthis Court upon a notification dated 7th March, 1987, issued<br \/>\nby the\tGovernment of Karnataka under the provisions of Rule<br \/>\n341  of\t the  Karnataka\t Motor\tVehicles  Rules,  1963.\t The<br \/>\nnotification  permitted\t  the\tHaulpak\t  35T\tRear-Dumpers<br \/>\ndescribed in  its Schedule  belonging to  M\/s. Bharat  Earth<br \/>\nMovers Limited\tto ply\tin  public  places  subject  to\t the<br \/>\nconditions  therein   stated.  The  Schedule  mentioned\t the<br \/>\nserial, chassis,  engine and  transmission  numbers  of\t six<br \/>\nHaulpak 35  T Rear  Dumpers. The  conditions also  indicated<br \/>\nthat the  notification applied\tto the plying of the dumpers<br \/>\nthemselves upon\t public roads and not to their carriage upon<br \/>\nother vehicles;\t as for\t example, the  first condition\tsaid<br \/>\nthat only  an empty  vehicle should  be transported  and  it<br \/>\nshould not  carry any load over and above its own weight. We<br \/>\nagree with  the High  Court that  this notification  had  no<br \/>\napplication to\tthe transport  of the  dumper on  the  truck<br \/>\ntrailer which was involved in the accident.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for  the\tCorporation  then  drew\t our<br \/>\nattention   to Rule  331 of  the  Karnataka  Motor  Vehicles<br \/>\nRules, 1963.  We must  say that it does not appear that this<br \/>\nrule was  pointed out  to the  High Court. The rule provides<br \/>\nfor the\t protection of loads on motor vehicles. Sub rule (2)<br \/>\nthereof states,\t &#8220;No person shall drive, and no person shall<br \/>\ncause or  allow to  be driven,\tin a  public place any motor<br \/>\nvehicle which  is loaded  in a manner likely to cause danger<br \/>\nto any\tperson or in such a manner that the load or any part<br \/>\nthereof or  anything extends : (1) laterally beyond the side<br \/>\nof the\tbody or\t beyond the vehicle plane in prolongation of<br \/>\nthe side  of the  body&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;. The  dumper, as the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas recorded upon the basis of evidence, protruded on either<br \/>\nside of\t the truck to an extent of one and a half  feet. The<br \/>\nmanner in  which  the  dumper  was  being  transported\twas,<br \/>\ntherefore, in clear contravention of the rule. It could have<br \/>\nbeen so\t transported only  with permission,  and subject  to<br \/>\nsuch conditions\t as were specified, under sub-rule 3 of Rule<br \/>\n331, which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;(3) The  District Magistrate  with<br \/>\n     the  concurrence  of  the\tRegional<br \/>\n     Transport Authority may be order in<br \/>\n     writing exempt  any  motor\t vehicle<br \/>\n     for  such\t purpose  and  for  such<br \/>\n     period,   and   subject   to   such<br \/>\n     conditions as may be specified from<br \/>\n     any or  all of  the  provisions  of<br \/>\n     this rule.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>No such permission was brought on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High  Court and  the Tribunal placed great emphasis<br \/>\non the\tfact that the truck was being driven very slowly and<br \/>\non the\tcorrect side  of the  road. Considering\t that it was<br \/>\ncarrying a  weight of  25 tonnes,  the truck  could not have<br \/>\nproceeded other than very slowly. It will be remembered that<br \/>\nthe trailer  was 12  feet wide\tand the\t dumper protruded on<br \/>\neither\tside   by  one\tand  a\thalf  feet.  Even  assuming,<br \/>\ntherefore, that\t the truck  was being  driven on the extreme<br \/>\nleft of\t the tarred  road, it  was occupying  thirteen and a<br \/>\nhalf feet  of its  twenty-four\tfoot  width,  and  for\tthis<br \/>\npurpose we  assume that the one and a half foot over-hang of<br \/>\nthe dumper  on the  left was  over the mud shoulder. It will<br \/>\nalso be remembered that the accident occurred at 10.30 p.m.,<br \/>\nwhich would  mean that\tboth the bus and the truck had their<br \/>\nheadlights on.\tThe Tribunal  has held\tthat &#8220;the bus driver<br \/>\nwas  not  justified  in\t hitting  the  bulldozer&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;.  It<br \/>\nappears, therefore, that what the bus hit was the protruding<br \/>\nportion of  the dumper. The effect of a speeding bus hitting<br \/>\nthe protrusion\tof equipment  that weighs  25 tonnes  is not<br \/>\ndifficult to imagine.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The evidence  of the driver of the truck is that he had<br \/>\nput red\t lights and  flags  on\teither\tside  of  the  truck<br \/>\ntrailer. The  claimants&#8217;  witnesses  do\t not  speak  of\t the<br \/>\nexistence of  red lights  or flags.  The Mahazar and the FIR<br \/>\nalso do not mention them. It appears to us that, but for the<br \/>\nprotrusion of  the dumper  from the  bed of the trailer, the<br \/>\nbus and\t the truck  would have\tsafely passed by each other.<br \/>\nThe protrusion\tof the\tdumper beyond the bed of the trailer<br \/>\nwas,   clearly, not  highlighted. Given the glare of blazing<br \/>\nhacadlights, the  bus driver,  at the  speed at which he was<br \/>\ntravelling, did\t not realise  that there  was  a  protrusion<br \/>\nbeyond the  bed of the trailer as massive as of a dumper and<br \/>\ncollided with  it. The\tcollision,  necessarily,  had  grave<br \/>\nconsequences. The  driver, sitting  at the very front of the<br \/>\nright of  the bus, would have  taken the full impact and may<br \/>\nwell have  died on  the spot.  It is, at any rate, more than<br \/>\nlikely that  he would  have  been  rendered  unconscious  or<br \/>\nincapacitated and  that the  progress of  the bus  150\tfeet<br \/>\nthereafter until it hit tree was unguided.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The High Court noted that the front of the bus had been<br \/>\nbadly damaged as a result of its collision with the tree. It<br \/>\nnoted that  a report  before it spoke of a side panel of the<br \/>\nbus and\t its supporting\t angles being torn, but it commented<br \/>\non the fact that the report did not say that it was the side<br \/>\npanel on the right hand side of the bus. If in this accident<br \/>\na side panel of the bus was torn, there can be no doubt that<br \/>\nit was\tthe right  hand side panel for it was the right hand<br \/>\nside of\t the bus  which came into contact with the dumper on<br \/>\nthe truck  trailer. It may well be that some or even many of<br \/>\nthe injuries sustained by the passengers of the bus were the<br \/>\nresult of  its collision  with the  tree, but  it cannot  be<br \/>\nforgotten  that\t  its  collision   with\t the  tree  was\t the<br \/>\nconsequence of\tits earlier  collision with  the dumper upon<br \/>\nthe truck trailer.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  circumstances, while thee is no doubt about the<br \/>\nnegligence of  the bus\tdriver and  his contribution  to the<br \/>\ncause of  the accident,\t the driver  of the truck  cannot be<br \/>\nabsolved. He was driving late at night a truck trailer which<br \/>\nbore upon  it very  heavy machinery that protruded one and a<br \/>\nhalf feet  on either  side of the bed of the trailer and the<br \/>\nprotrusion was\tnot clearly  marked out\t by  red  lights  or<br \/>\nreflectors thereon  for oncoming vehicles to plainly notice.<br \/>\nThe carriage  of the  dumper upon the trailer in this manner<br \/>\nwas in\tbreach of  Rule 331  of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles<br \/>\nRules, 1963. In our view, the sum total of this is, plainly,<br \/>\nnegligence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for the  insurer of  the truck trailer<br \/>\nsubmitted that there was no evidence to show that the dumper<br \/>\nhad projected laterally from the bed of the trailer. We have<br \/>\nalready drawn attention to the fact that the Tribunal has so<br \/>\nheld; in its words : &#8220;As admitted by RW1 lorry driver, width<br \/>\nof the bulldozer was 15&#8242; width of the lorry was 12 feet, and<br \/>\non either side do edges of lorry bulldozer was protruding to<br \/>\nan extent of one and a half feet.&#8221; It was submitted that the<br \/>\ndriver of  the trailer\thad taken  all precautions by way of<br \/>\nshowing red  lights and\t flags.\t Here  also  we\t have  drawn<br \/>\nattention to  the evidence.  In this regard the Tribunal had<br \/>\nthis to\t say :\t&#8220;RW1 is\t said to have rushed to the spot and<br \/>\nprepared the  sketch as per Ex.R2 and he is said to have not<br \/>\nfound any  flags fixed\ton  the\t protruded  portion  of\t the<br \/>\nbulldozer carried  in the  lorry. This\tfact is\t disputed by<br \/>\nRW1. He\t states that  he had  kept red\tlights and  flags on<br \/>\neither side  of the lorry. None of the witnesses examined on<br \/>\nbehalf of petitioner ever speak about existence of red flags<br \/>\nor lights.  Mahazar does  not make  anything clear about the<br \/>\nexistence of  red lights  or flags either side of the lorry.<br \/>\nSimilarly, FIR does not say about existence of such flags or<br \/>\nred lights.&#8221;  We are,  therefore,  unable  to  accept  these<br \/>\nsubmissions on behalf of the insurer of the truck trailer.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question  then arises as to the proportion in which<br \/>\nthe driver  of the  truck contributed,\tby reason  of  their<br \/>\nnegligence, to\tthe accident  and how  the liability  to the<br \/>\nclaimants should be apportioned between them.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for the Corporation drew our attention<br \/>\nto the\tjudgment of the Court of Appeal in Rouse vs. Squires<br \/>\nand others,  1973 All  about 10.30  p.m. on  a frosty  night<br \/>\nAllen was  driving an  articulated lorry  along a  motor-way<br \/>\nwhen, because  of his  negligence, it skidded, `jack-knifed&#8217;<br \/>\nand ended  up blocking\tthe slow  and center  lanes  of\t the<br \/>\ncarriageway. A\tcar  travelling\t behind\t collided  with\t the<br \/>\nlorry. Its  rear lights\t remained on. Rouse saw the accident<br \/>\nand drove his lorry safely past. He then parked and returned<br \/>\nto render help. Another lorry, driven by Franklin, pulled up<br \/>\nsome 15\t feet short  of Allen&#8217;s\t lorry.\t Franklin  left\t his<br \/>\nheadlights on purposely to illuminate the broken down lorry.<br \/>\nFinally,  some\tfive  to  ten  minutes\tafter  the  original<br \/>\naccident,  Squires   arrived  on   the\tscene\tdriving\t his<br \/>\nemployers&#8217;s lorry  at a fast speed. He did not realise, when<br \/>\nhe first  saw the  vehicles some  400 yards  away, that they<br \/>\nwere stationary\t and that  two lanes of the carriageway were<br \/>\nobstructed. Eventually,\t at a  distance of some 150 yards he<br \/>\napplied his  brakes but,  because of  the frosty surface, he<br \/>\nskidded. His  lorry collided  with the\trear  of  Franklin&#8217;s<br \/>\nlorry and  pushed it forward with the result that it knocked<br \/>\nRouse down  and caused\thim fatal  injuries.  Rouse&#8217;s  widow<br \/>\nobtained damages against Squires in respect of his negligent<br \/>\ndriving and,  in third\tparty proceedings,  Squires  claimed<br \/>\ncontribution from  Allen and  his employers  in\t respect  of<br \/>\nAllen&#8217;s negligence.  The trial\tjudge  dismissed  the  claim<br \/>\nholding that   Squires\twas wholly to blame for the accident<br \/>\nsince the  broken down\tlorry was adequately lighted and, if<br \/>\nSquires had  kept a  proper look-out,  he would have seen it<br \/>\nsome 400  yards away  thereby giving himself sufficient time<br \/>\nto take\t avoiding  action.  Squires  appealed.\tCairuns,  LJ<br \/>\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;If a driver so negligently manages<br \/>\n     his  vehicle  as  to  cause  it  to<br \/>\n     obstruct the highway and constitute<br \/>\n     a\tdanger\t to  other  road  users,<br \/>\n     including those who are driving too<br \/>\n     fast or  not keeping a proper look-<br \/>\n     out,  but\tnot  those  obstruction,<br \/>\n     then the  first driver&#8217;s negligence<br \/>\n     may be  held to have contributed to<br \/>\n     immediate cause  was the  negligent<br \/>\n     driving  of   the\t vehicle   which<br \/>\n     because  of  the  presence\t of  the<br \/>\n     obstruction  collides  with  it  or<br \/>\n     with some\tother  vehicle\tor  some<br \/>\n     other person.  Accordingly, I would<br \/>\n     hold in  this case that Mr. Allen&#8217;s<br \/>\n     negligence did  contribute\t to  the<br \/>\n     death of Mr. Rouse.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     xxx\t   xxx\t\t xxx<br \/>\n     I look  at the  situation\tin  this<br \/>\n     way.  Of  course  we  do  not  know<br \/>\n     exactly  what   happened\tto   Mr.<br \/>\n     Allen&#8217;s  lorry;   but   there   was<br \/>\n     nothing to\t suggest that he had any<br \/>\n     emergency situation  to  face.  For<br \/>\n     some  reason  he  had  simply  lost<br \/>\n     control of\t his vehicle, presumably<br \/>\n     by driving\t too fast  on  a  frosty<br \/>\n     road or  by unwisely  applying  his<br \/>\n     brakes. Mr.  Squires has  been held<br \/>\n     by the  learned judge (and I do not<br \/>\n     query this\t part of his finding) to<br \/>\n     have been\textremely  negligent  in<br \/>\n     that, in  addition to  driving  too<br \/>\n     fast, he  failed in  keep a  proper<br \/>\n     look-out. But is can be said of his<br \/>\n     that  he\tdid  not   initiate  the<br \/>\n     dangerous situation  but failed  to<br \/>\n     take adequate  steps to cope with a<br \/>\n     situation\tthat   already\texisted.<br \/>\n     Through that  failure  he\tmust  be<br \/>\n     held  to\tbe  the\t  person  mainly<br \/>\n     respondent for this calamity. In my<br \/>\n     view the  right proportion of blame<br \/>\n     which  should   be\t  put\ton   his<br \/>\n     shoulderls\t is   75  per\tcent  as<br \/>\n     agianst 25 per cent on Mr. Allen.&#8221;<br \/>\nMackenna J. agreed, and said :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;On these\tfacts I\t would hold that<br \/>\n     Mr. Allen&#8217;s  negligence contributed<br \/>\n     to\t cause\t the   fatal   collision<br \/>\n     between   Mr.   Squires   and   Mr.<br \/>\n     Franklin. His driving in such a way<br \/>\n     that his  lorry ended up across two<br \/>\n     lanes of  the roadway was negligent<br \/>\n     because of\t the risk it created for<br \/>\n     other vehicles  travelling\t in  the<br \/>\n     same direction.  The risk\twas that<br \/>\n     these other  vehicles might collide<br \/>\n     with the  lorry or\t might cause  or<br \/>\n     suffer damage  in seeking\tto avoid<br \/>\n     such a  collision. Though this risk<br \/>\n     was diminished when the head-lights<br \/>\n     of\t Mr.   Franklin&#8217;s   lorry   were<br \/>\n     focused on\t the trailer,  it  still<br \/>\n     existed to\t a  substantial\t degree,<br \/>\n     and  because   of\tit  Mr.\t Squires<br \/>\n     collided with Mr. Franklin&#8217;s lorry.<br \/>\n     The case  might have been different<br \/>\n     if there  had  been  no  connection<br \/>\n     between   Mr.   Allen&#8217;s   negligent<br \/>\n     driving  and  the\tfatal  collision<br \/>\n     except  that   it\thad  caused  Mr.<br \/>\n     Franklin to stop where he did.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Buckley, LJ  also agreed, holding that there was no break in<br \/>\nthe chain  of causation\t between Allen&#8217;s  negligence and the<br \/>\naccident.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  in agreement  with the  observations of Cairns,<br \/>\nLJ.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The driver\t of the\t truck trailer\tmanaged it  in a way<br \/>\nwhich caused  it to  occupy atleast thirteen and a half feet<br \/>\nof the twenty-four foot wide tarred highway. He carried upon<br \/>\nthe trailer  at the dead of night a massive protrusion which<br \/>\nwas not clearly marked out. It constituted a danger to other<br \/>\nroad users,  and it made no difference that hose road users,<br \/>\nlike the  bus driver,  were driving  fast. The negligence of<br \/>\nthe driver  of the  truck must\tnecessarily be\theld to have<br \/>\ncontributed to\tthe causation  of the  accident, by which we<br \/>\nmean not  only the  collision of the bus with the protrusion<br \/>\nupon the truck trailer but also its later collision with the<br \/>\ntree. The  chain of  events began  with the  bus hitting the<br \/>\ndumper projecting  from the  bed of the trailer outward onto<br \/>\nthe width  of the road and ended with its collision with the<br \/>\ntree. But  for the  former collision  the  latter  collision<br \/>\nwould not  have occurred. The negligence of the truck driver<br \/>\ncertainly contributed  to the  accident, but we do not think<br \/>\nthat the  proportion in\t which he contributed can be said to<br \/>\nbe equal to the contribution of the bus driver, which is the<br \/>\nsubmission made\t in the\t pleadings of the Corporation before<br \/>\nthis Court. In our view, the proportion of negligence should<br \/>\nbe 60  per cent\t that of the bus driver and 40 per cent that<br \/>\nof the\tdriver of the truck trailer. Had the former not been<br \/>\nspeeding he would have noticed the bulk upon the trailer and<br \/>\nkept prudently away.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Learned counsel  for the  insurer of  the truck trailer<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tthe conditions\tof its insurance policy were<br \/>\nbreached by  reason of the negligence of its driver. He also<br \/>\nsubmitted that,\t in any\t event, the  insurer  of  the  truck<br \/>\ntrailer could  not be made liable for any amount beyond that<br \/>\nprovided under\tthe Motor Vehicles Act. Although the plea of<br \/>\nthe contributory  negligence of\t the driver of the truck was<br \/>\ntaken before  the Tribunal,  the aforesaid  contentions were<br \/>\nnot raised  and the  insurance\tpolicy\tcovering  the  truck<br \/>\ntrailer was  not brought  on record.  It is,  therefore, not<br \/>\npossible  to   accede\tto   either   of   the\t submissions<br \/>\nafforestated.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We find  that in  the claim petitions that were decided<br \/>\nby the\tTribunal on  30th October, 1988 (out of which M.F.A.<br \/>\nNos.141 and  142 of the 1989 arose before the High Court and<br \/>\nCivil Appeals  102 and\t103 of 1992 arise before this Court)<br \/>\nthe Corporation had led no evidence at all. In those matters<br \/>\nthe liability  to pay  compensation must  remain exclusively<br \/>\nthat of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  result, Civil  Appeals 101,  104, 105  &amp; 106 of<br \/>\n1992 are allowed. The judgment and order under these appeals<br \/>\nis set\taside insofar as it holds that the owner, driver and<br \/>\ninsurer of  the\t truck\ttrailer\t were  not  responsible\t for<br \/>\npayment of  any part of the compensation awarded. The owner,<br \/>\ndriver and  insurer of\tthe truck  trailer are\theld  to  be<br \/>\nliable, jointly\t and severally,\t to pay\t 40 per\t cent of the<br \/>\ncompensation.  Having\tregard\tto   the   fact\t  that\t the<br \/>\ncompensation has  already been\tpaid by the Corporation, the<br \/>\nCorporation shall be entitled to recover 40 per cent thereof<br \/>\nfrom the owner, driver and insurer of the truck trailer.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Civil Appeals 102 and 103 of 1992 are dismissed.<br \/>\n     There shall  be, no  order as to costs in all the Civil<br \/>\nAppeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (3) 446, JT 1996 (4) 32 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) PETITIONER: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: K.V. SAKEENA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/03\/1996 BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-22T06:23:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T06:23:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3105,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996\",\"name\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T06:23:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-22T06:23:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996","datePublished":"1996-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T06:23:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996"},"wordCount":3105,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996","name":"Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T06:23:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-state-road-transport-vs-k-v-sakeena-ors-on-15-march-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnataka State Road Transport &#8230; vs K.V. Sakeena &amp; Ors on 15 March, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}