De Mel, P.C. V. Balasuriya

1934 Present: Dalton J.

P. C. DE MEL v. BALASURIYA.

485-P. C. Kurunegala, 35,652.

    Motor bus-Contravention of driving rule by driver-Liability of owner-No evidence of abetment-Motor Car Ordinance, No. 20 of 1927, ss. 43 (2) and 80 (3) (b).

Where the owner of a motor-bus was charged with allowing his driver to halt the bus on a high road for a longer period than was necessary to pick up and set down passengers,-

Held, that the owner was not liable unless he abetted the commission of the offence.

The provisions of section 80 (3) (b) do Hot apply to the contravention of a driving rule.

APPEAL from a conviction by the Police Magistrate of Kurunegala.

Navaratnam, for accused, appellant.

Cur. adv. vult.

August 31,1934. DALTON J.-

The accused is the owner of bus No. P 1347. He has been convicted on a charge of allowing his driver to halt the bus on the high road in the bazaar at Mawatagama on February 2 last for a period longer than was necessary to pick up and set down passengers. There was no charge that accused aided and abetted his driver to commit the offence, and the Magistrate points out that, although the accused was present at the time of the alleged offence, there is no evidence that he aided or abetted his driver, but he finds th accused as owner guilty in view of the provisions of section 80 (3) (b) of the Motor Car Ordinance, 1927. I have not had the benefit of hearing any argument in support of the conviction.

The particular offence charged here of standing in the highway longer than was reasonably necessary is defined in section 2 (c) of Part I. of Schedule IV. of the Ordinance. Section 84 of the Ordinance provides the penalty.

Section 80 of the Ordinance provides for the liability of the owner as well as the driver in the case of certain offences. The section is as follows :-

80 (1) If any motor car is used which does not comply with or contravenes any provision of this Ordinance or of any regulation, or of
any order lawfully made under this Ordinance or any regulation; or (2) If any motor car is used in such a state or condition or in such a manner as to contravene any such provision; or

(3) If anything is done or omitted in connection with a motor car in contravention of any such provision; then unless otherwise expressly provided by this Ordinance,-

(a) The driver of the motor car at the time of the offence shall be guilty of an offence unless the offence was not due to any act, omission, neglect, or default on his part; and

(b) The owner of the motor car shall also be guilty of an offence, if present at the time of the offence, or, if absent, unless the offence was committed without his consent and was -not due to any act or omission on his part, and he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the offence.

Chapter VII. of the Ordinance lays down certain driving rules. Amongst other things, rules are here provided setting out how a motor car shall be driven, how obstructions to other traffic are to be avoided, how and where cars shall be placed when halted, how when halted they shall not be allowed to remain in such position so as to obstruct or be likely to obstruct other traffic, and regulations for parking generally. Section 43 (1) directs that the driver of a car shall observe the provisions of this chapter, and sub-section (2) states that section 80 (3) (b) shall not apply to a contravention of this chapter. It goes on to provide that the owner of a motor car, not being the driver thereof, shall only be convicted of a contravention of a provision of this chapter, not being specially applicable to the owner, if he has abetted such contravention.

The Magistrate has convicted the appellant on the ground that he has contravened clause 2 (c) of Schedule IV. of the Ordinance and not any provision of Chapter VII. Hence he states he cannot claim the benefit of the provisions of section 43 (2).

The Ordinance is n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document