#traffic Archives - Prime Legal

Coram : Chief Justice Sanjeev Narula

Order date : 17^th October, 2023

Introduction :

A PIL was filed in the hon’ble Delhi High Court to address concerns over slow moving vehicles on the expressway prohibiting high-speed throughfare.

Facts:

The PIL filed by the petitioner stated that the purpose of the expressway is deteriorated when the slow moving vehicles clogs the roads and also jeopardizes public safety. The PIL intrinsically connects the right to safer travel with that of broad interpretation of right to life and personal liberty.

It was observed that the genesis of the PIL can be traced back to the petitioner’s personal experiences who has been commuting in the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway which is a segment of NH-48. The petitioner claims that the presence of slow moving vehicles in the expressway has significantly increased and has caused multitude of accidents resulting in loss of life and property damage. The petitioner had approached various authorities such as the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) who has confirmed the prohibition of slow moving vehicles. NHAI came with an agreement with DCP- Gurugram (respondents 5) which stated that vehicles like tractors, carts, and two-three wheelers are explicitly barred.

NHAI reports between 2017-2022 produced data that 31 fatalities have been caused because of slow moving vehicles along with 137 grave accidents in the expressway. The petitioner also refers to the HC of Karnataka which refrained two wheelers to use highways and insisted on using the service roads. The petitioner has filed the PIL on the ground that there is a lack of adherence to traffic norms and road regulations.

Courts Analysis and Judgement:

The court took cognizance of the issue and stated that it is of utmost importance to ensure that traffic rules and regulations are strictly enforced. The court also noticed that the NHAI has observed the alarmingly increasing slow moving vehicles in the expressway causing frequent accidents.

It was stated that that the prohibition of two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors and animal driven vehicles are done primarily to ensure the safety of all road users and use the express way effectively. It has been noted that there is a regulatory framework for providing safety measures but the problem persists in the enforcement and adherence.

The court directed the state to rigorously enforce the existing prohibitions with respect to slow moving vehicles. In furtherance, it was held that providing an additional specific lane would be filled with complexities upon the policy considerations.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

Case Title: NHAI v. Suresh Chandra, FAO No. 179 of 2019

Date: 02.06.2023

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Sriansh Prakarsh, and Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Advocates.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Swastik Singh and Mr. Himanshu Dagar, Advocates

Introduction

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri ruled that a force majeure occurrence entails a total closure of the route owing to floods, not only a decrease in traffic on a specific road.

The Court set aside an arbitration award against NHAI on the grounds that the Arbitral Tribunal’s interpretation was contrary to the parties’ intent; thus, the award could be susceptible to review for being contrary to the agreements and would fall inside the scope of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) (conditions for setting aside of the arbitration award by the court) of the Act.

Facts of the Case

The parties came to an agreement on March 21, 2014, under which the other party was hired to collect the User Fee at a toll plaza for a period of 12 months. The contract called for arbitration for dispute resolution.

Clause 9 of the contract dealt with traffic reduction and banned any claim for it. It stated that while submitting a proposal for the project, the contractor should consider the possibility of reduced traffic owing to diversions or degradation in the physical state of the roads.

The agreement’s clause 25 addressed force majeure scenarios. It permitted the contractor to seek reimbursement for a decrease in the collection if the road was completely blocked owing to any of the events specified therein. This was contingent on the employee providing notification right away before seeking compensation.

A disagreement erupted between the parties as a result of excessive rains and flooding. There was a vehicle restriction/partial closure on a neighboring route, resulting in less traffic going through the toll plaza. The appellant further assessed liquidated damages against the respondent for failing to collect the bare minimum stipulated in the agreement.

Due to these incidents, the respondent claimed a drop in weekly collections as well as further reimbursements. The NHAI project director also proposed this, but the Regional Director rejected it on the grounds that the decreases are not in accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement. The responder, enraged by this, sought arbitration. The arbitral panel ruled in favor of the respondent. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a complaint under the provisions of section 34 of the legislation.

Courts Analysis and Decision

The Court interpreted both clauses and determined that the situation covered by Clause 25, i.e., force majeure, only applies to the complete closure of the roads leading to the toll plaza and that any slight decrease or diverting of traffic is completely addressed by Clause 9 of the agreement.

The Court determined that, while the case does not include a total blockage of the roadways, it does involve a partial reduction in traffic and, as a result, a loss in toll user fee collection as a result of a remote incident of flooding and partial closure of neighboring roads/highways.

The Court ruled that an interim decrease in traffic caused by a distant occurrence such as a flood does not constitute an emergency event. Flood considers a whole road closure, not just a constraint in traffic on a specific route.

The Court of Appeal set aside an arbitration award against NHAI on the grounds that the Arbitral Tribunal’s interpretation was contrary to the parties’ intent, and thus the verdict would be susceptible to challenge for being in contradiction to the agreement and would fall within the purview of Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.

Judgement

Click here to review the judgement

Written by- Anushka Satwani

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

State to ensure rigorous enforcement of prohibition of slow moving vehicles on Delhi NCT expressways – Delhi High Court

‘Partial Traffic Decrease’ The award against NHAI is set aside by the Delhi High Court because the remote event of flooding is not a force majeure event.