006-NLR-NLR-V-29-BRANCTHA-v.-PERERA.pdf
( 38 )
1986.
Present: Dalton J.
BRANCTHA r. PERERA457—P. (7. Batnapura, 32,337
Motor by-laws—Road declared suitable for lorries under modified condi-tions—Statedweight—Busfullyloaded and equipped—Vehicles
Ordinance, No* 4 of 1896, by-law 35 (9).
Where motor by-laws permit lorries to be driven along certainroads under modified conditions as to weight, an offence is committedwhenever a vehicle is used, which, when it is fully loaded andequipped, exceeds the stated weight.
A
PPEAL fromaconvictionbythe Police Magistrate of
Batnapura.The appellantwascharged with driving his
bus, which whenfullyloaded weighed3 tons 3 cwt. and 3 qr., on
the Batnapura-Avissawella road, which it was alleged was closedto the use of buses and lorries weighing, when fully loaded, over3 tons under the motor by-laws. It was established that onthe occasion in question when the bus was on the road it carriedonly 14 passengers and that its total weight was only 2 tons 13 cwt.and 3 qr. It was contended that the by-law contemplated anoffence being committed only when the actual weight of the Vehicleand itst load was greater than the stated weight.
H. T’. Perera (with Rajahariar), for accused, appellant.
September 3, 1926. Dalton J.—
This appeal raises a question under the motor by-laws, the casebeing taken in the Police Court- as a test case. Appellant wascharged with driving his bus which, when fully loaded, weighed3tons3 cwt.and3 qr., on theRatuapura-Avissawella road, which
itwasallegedwasclosed to theuse of buses and lorries weighing,
when fully loaded, over 3 tons.
By-law 35 (2) made under the provisions of section 22 of theVehicles Ordinance, No. 4 of 1916, is in the following terms: —
“ In the event of a motor lorry being used on any road that has notbeen declared suitable for use by lorries, or on any roadwhichhasbeen declaredsuitable under modified conditions,
whenthetotal weightof the lorry and load is greater
than such modified conditions specify, the driver shall beguilty of an offence under these by-laws/’
The road in question has been declared .suitable for use by lorriesunder modified conditions. That appears from the notification
( 39 )
framed under the by-laws and published in the Government Gazetteof January 29, 1926. The road in question, is included amongstother roads under the following heading: —
" Eoads on which there is no objection to motor lorries beingrun under modified conditions as to total weights stated(stated weights mean when vehicles are fully loaded andequipped)/’
The total weight stated in the case of this particular roadis 8 tons. It is enacted in the definition clause of the by-lawsthat the expression " lorry ” includes any mechanically propelledvehicle more than 3 tons in weight when fully loaded and equipped,whether such vehicle is used principally for transporting goodsor for carrying passengers. The bus in question had a carryingcapacity of 24 passengers. The unladen weight of the bus was1 ton 19 cwt. and 3 qr. Taking 24 passengers at 112 lb. or1 cwt. each, this brings the weight- of the fully loaded bus to wellover 3 tons. The authority for thus putting the weight of eachpassenger at 112 lb. is stated to be in rule 4 of the by-laws of 1920framed under the same Ordinance and the schedule thereto. Theseby-laws provide for the proper examination and licensing ofmechanically propelled vehicles. Rule 4 deal.s with the applicationfor a licence, whilst the schedule gives a form of applicationsetting out *the particulars required to be given. The tenth itemof information required in that form is set out in the followingwords: —
“ 10. If car to be licensed to carry passengers, maximum numberof passengers permissible, including driver and conductor,so that the vehicle when fully loaded and equipped,including weight of passengers, driver, and conductor, doesnot weigh more than 3 tons.. Allow 8 stones or 1 cwt. asweight of each person.”
These by-laws would therefore appear to enact, and it has notbeen questioned on this appeal, that for the purpose of estimatingthe weight of a fully loaded passenger-carrying vehicle, eachpassenger is to be taken arbitrarily as weighing 112 lb.
It is established there that the total stated weight for a vehicleon this road is 3 tons. It is further established that the totalweight when fully loaded of the vehicle in question is over 8 tons.On the occasion in question, however, when the vehicle was on theroad it only had 14 passengers in it, the total weight at 112 lb. perpassenger being then only 2 tons 13 cwt. and 3 qr. It has beenargued for the appellant, the driver of the bus,' that the by-lawunder which he has been charged merely refers to the total weightof the vehicle, and does not make use of the words " when fully
29/7
Dalton J.
Branctha v.Perera
( 40 )
1926. loaded and equipped/* Hence it is argued that the by-law contem-Dai/tox >t plates an offence being committed only when the actual weight of
the vehicle and its load is greater than the stated weight. The
B™*erlru * by-law, however, makes use of the same words “total weight’*as the notification which I have set out. The notification and theby-laws must clearly be read together. If actual weight wasintended, it would have been very easy to say so. One must havereference to the aim, scope, and object of the by-laws and noticesthereunder as a whole. Regard may be hud to the practicabilityof a particular interpretation or the reasonableness of any provisionin interpreting what the law making body has stated, it is obvioushere that if effect be given to the argument advanced for appellant,apart* from the inconvenience to which the Magistrate callsattention, the provision would be unworkable without a. large bodyof traffic inspectors along the roads continually checking thenumber of passengers entering and leaving the vehicles. One isentitled to presume that the intention was not to enact what mayunder the circumstances be impracticable or unreasonable.
Apart, however, from this, as the Magistrate points out, thenotification lays down the modified conditions referred to in theby-law (85 (2)) under which the charge was laid. In my opinion' bis conclusion that the words “ total weight of the lorry ” in section85 (2) mean the total weight stated in the notification, when thevehicle is fully loaded and equipped, is correct, and that under thecircumstances here the bus came within the term “ lorry “ as usedin the by-law.
The conviction must therefore be affirmed, and the appealdismissed.
Appeal dismissed.