Road Traffic Offences Under The Road Traffic Act
1. Introduction to Road Traffic Offences
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regulates road transport vehicles in India. It defines offences, penalties, and procedures to ensure road safety, prevent accidents, and regulate traffic.
Common road traffic offences include:
Drunken driving / Driving under influence of alcohol or drugs – Section 185
Dangerous driving / Reckless driving – Section 184
Driving without licence – Section 3, 177
Overloading – Section 112, 192
Driving without insurance – Section 146, 196
Violation of traffic signals – Section 129–134
Hit-and-run / Causing death or injury by rash driving – Section 304A, 279, 337, 338
Penalties range from fines, suspension of licence, imprisonment, or combination of both.
2. Major Road Traffic Offences Explained
(a) Drunken Driving – Section 185
Essentials:
Driving or attempting to drive a vehicle
When under the influence of alcohol or drugs
Blood alcohol content exceeds the prescribed limit
Punishment:
Fine up to ₹10,000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months (for first offence)
Subsequent offences attract higher penalties
(b) Rash or Negligent Driving – Section 184 & 279
Driving recklessly or negligently or in a manner dangerous to the public
If death occurs due to rash driving – Section 304A applies
Punishment: Fine, imprisonment, or both
(c) Driving Without Licence – Sections 3, 177
Driving without a valid driving licence
Punishment: Fine up to ₹5,000 and/or imprisonment
(d) Hit-and-Run – Section 304A & 279, 337, 338
Causing death by negligence – 304A
Causing injury – 337, 338
Failure to stop at accident scene – punishable
(e) Overloading and Dangerous Vehicles – Sections 112, 192
Exceeding the permitted weight limit
Using defective or dangerous vehicles
Punishment: Fine, seizure of vehicle, imprisonment in severe cases
3. Key Case Laws on Road Traffic Offences
Case 1: State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (1980)
Facts:
A driver caused death by reckless driving on a highway.
Held:
Court held that rash and negligent driving causing death falls under Section 304A.
Even if death is accidental, negligence can attract criminal liability.
Importance:
Established criminal liability for negligent driving leading to death, even if unintentional.
Case 2: Ratanlal vs. State of Maharashtra (1988)
Facts:
Driver was caught driving under influence of alcohol, causing minor injuries.
Held:
Driving under intoxication is a cognizable offence.
Court held strict liability principle applies – intention to harm is not necessary.
Importance:
Strengthens enforcement against drunken driving, emphasizing public safety over personal defence.
Case 3: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Delhi (1994)
Facts:
Driver involved in a hit-and-run accident, injured a pedestrian, fled the scene.
Held:
Court held fleeing the scene of an accident aggravates liability.
Section 304A and 279 invoked together with procedural penalty under Section 133 for failing to stop.
Importance:
Highlights the obligation to stop and report accidents to authorities.
Courts impose strict penalties to deter hit-and-run cases.
Case 4: Ram Singh vs. Union of India (2000)
Facts:
A commercial vehicle was overloaded, causing road damage and minor accidents.
Held:
Overloading constitutes an offence under Section 112/192.
Court emphasized road safety and public protection over economic convenience of transport operators.
Importance:
Clarifies that overloading is a serious offence, not just a minor violation.
Case 5: Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005)
Facts:
Driver without a licence caused an accident resulting in injuries.
Held:
Driving without a licence under Sections 3 & 177 is a cognizable offence.
Even if driver is unaware, ignorance is no defence.
Importance:
Reinforces the mandatory nature of a valid driving licence for road safety.
Case 6: K. R. Subramaniam vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010)
Facts:
Commercial bus driver involved in an accident due to reckless driving.
Held:
Reckless driving on public roads attracts both civil and criminal liability.
Compensation for victims under Section 166 of MV Act and criminal penalty under Section 279.
Importance:
Introduces concept of dual liability – civil and criminal for traffic offences.
4. Key Takeaways
Strict Liability Principle: Most traffic offences don’t require mens rea (intention).
Public Safety Priority: Courts prioritize public safety over individual excuses.
Procedural Compliance: Penalties increase if procedural obligations (reporting accidents, serving notice, stopping at scene) are violated.
Corporate/Employer Liability: Vehicle owners can also be held liable if offences occur under their authority.
Cognizable and Compoundable: Many MV offences are cognizable; some are compoundable (can be settled with fine).
RELATED Blog
comments