060-NLR-NLR-V-59-PERERA-AND-MUNASINGHE.-LTD.-Appellant-and-THE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Respondent.pdf
B A SNA Y AKE, C.J.—Per era and Munasinghe, Ltd. v. The Attorney.General . 239
1957Present : Basnayake, C.J., and L. W. dc Silva, A.J.
PERERA AND MUNASINGHE, DTD., Appellant, and THEATTORNEY-GENERAR, Respondent.-
.S. C. 692—D. C. Colombo, 36,071/M
Motor Traffic Act, 2Vo. li of 1951—Section 230—Action for recovery of damages forinjury to public properly—Quantum of evidence.
In. an action in which it is sought to rccovor tho cost of tho repairs to any classof public property referred to in section 236 of tho Hot or Traffic Act, the plaintiff'must establish that tho injury in respect of which proceedings have beeninstituted was caused by reason of an offence under the Mot or Traffic Act.
-^^t-PPEAR from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo. "
J. A. L. Cooray, for Defendant-Appellant.
V. S.-A. Pullenaycffum, Crown Counsel, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
' August 30, 1957. Bassayake, C.J.—
This is an action by the Attorney-General against the defendant, alimited liability company’, in which he seeks to recover a sum of Rs. 1,850being the costs of the injury caused to culvert No. 7/17 on a highwayknown as Parakaduwa-Bovilla-Digowa Road. It is alleged in paragraph9 of the plaint that a cause of action has accrued to the Crown by virtueof the provisions of section 236 of the Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951.That section provides as follows :—.-
“ If by reason of any offence under this Act any injury is caused toany highway’, or bridge, …. the Department or authorityruay cause such injury to be repaired, and may, either before or afterthe repairs are effected, recover tho estimated or actual cost thereoffrom the owner of the motor vehicle which caused the injury. ”.
The Attorney-General states that a motor lorry bearing registerednumber CD 8041 whilst being driven by one H. M. Pabilis Singho collidedwith and caused injury to the culvert in question, and that the driverPabilis Singho when charged in ease No. 12,337 of the Magistrate’s Courtof Avissawella for—"V •*
(a) ch iving the lorry No. CD 8041 on the Digowa-Bovilfa Road outsidethe area of operation specified in the revenue licence for that,lorry in breach of section 1S6 of the Motor Traffic Act; No. 14 of*.1951, and.y ’ ' . y. A. Vh- -;yy’:
(b)
driving lorry No.- CD 8041 the tare and load of which wah 5 tonsy'16 ewts. 2 qrs. 14 lbs. on the Digowa-Bovilla Road on .which the fmaximum weight allowed was only 2 tons in' breach of section 7 ' ;
240. BASNAYAJCE, C.J.—Percra cnid Munasirighe, Ltd. v. The Attorney-General
– of the Regulations made by the Minister of Transport and Worksunder sections 145, 146 and 239 of "the Motor Traffic Act,-, No. 14 of 1951- .' .-3..•: '
pleaded guilty and Avas fined 11s. 10 in respect of each charge.
The infirmity in the plaintiff’s case is. that the evidence adduced doesnot establish that the injury Avas caused by reason of an offence underthe Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951. The learned counsel for the CroAvninvites us to infer that the defendant’s Arehicle caused the damage fromthe mere fact that the lorry in question had a tare and load of 116 CAvts.We are unable to accede to this submission. In an action in Avhich it issought to recoA'er the cost of the repairs to any class of public propertyreferred to in section 236 of the Motor Traffic Act, No. 14 of 1951, theCroAvn must establish that the injury in respect of which proceedings havebeen instituted Avas caused by reason of an offence under the Motor TrafficAct. -This the plaintiff has failed to do in the instant case.
We aceoidingly set aside the judgment of the learned District Judgeand alloAV the appeal Avith costs.
L. W. do Silva, A.J.—I agree.
Appeal allowed.