( 1 ) THE limited question involved in these appeals is, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the parked van bearing Regn. No. AP-02/v-1874 was in any way responsible for the accident.

( 2 ) IN the accident that took place during the intervening night of 6th and 7th December, 1977 between the tempo bearing reg. No. KA- 02/3710 and the mini lorry bearing Reg. No. AP-02/v-1874 three persons who were travelling in the goods tempo had died. When the tempo which, according to the claimants, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner was near the Doorapapeswar factory on Bangalore- Hyderabad road, it dashed against the rear side of the mini lorry which was parked on the tarred portion of the road. The parking lights of the mini lorry were not switched on at the time of the accident. The legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Tribunal alleging that the death had occurred due to the composite negligence of both the vehicles. The Tribunal while awarding compensation in each of these petitions fixed the liability to pay compensation only on respondent No. 3, the owner of the tempo bearing reg. No. KA-O2/3710, on the ground that the parked mini lorry was in no way responsible for the accident. The present appeals by the legal representatives of the deceased are directed only against this part of the judgment of the Tribunal. The appeals do not challenge the quantum of compensation awarded in each of these cases.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel Mr. AK. Bhat for the claimants and Sri. S. Srishaila for respondent No. 2. Sri. A. V. Shatry for respondent No. 3 was not present at the hearing.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal has come to the conclusion in the impugned order that the stationary mini lorry had not contributed to the accident in any way and the offending tempo alone was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the case at paragraph 8 of the order in the following terms: when we see the above evidence of both the parties it clearly goes to show that the tempo was parked on the left side of the road portion and it was partly on the road and partly on the mud road. Thus, sketch Ex. P5 produced by the petitioner shows that the tar road at the place is a straight road and it is 23 feet in width and on either side there is mud road of 15 feet width. The parked vehicle No. 1874 was parked partly on the mud road and party on tar road. The tempo No. 3710 has gone and dashed to that parked vehicle. It is seen that there is more than sufficient place on the tar portion and it was not at all an obstruction for the vehicle No. 3710 and there was no necessity for him to go and dash to that vehicle. Hence, the sketch as per Ex. P5 clearly goes to show that the vehicle was properly parked by the side of the road. On the other hand the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling ie. 3710 has got to the extreme left side of the road and dashed to the parked vehicle. Hence, the driver of the tempo No. 3710 is actually negligent. There was ample scope for him to avoid the accident. It is this vehicle which was moving and has gone and dashed to the lorry which was parked. Hence, I hold that the driver of the temp bearing No. KA-02- 3710 was rash and negligent in driving that tempo and the driver of the said vehicle No. AP-02-1874 was not responsible for that accident. Before I proceed to consider whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the above effect is correct or not it would be uself to refer to the provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that governs parking of vehicles. The legal position is that parking of vehicle should be always done in a manner so as not to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the road. The relevant provision in that regard is Section 122. It reads: leaving vehicle in dangers position. No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document