The absence of warning signals while parking a vehicle constitutes sole negligence, making the vehicle owner fully liable for resultant accidents, with no contributory negligence from the victim.

ORDER :

1. Appellant-Claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 16.09.2019 passed by Learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 397/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants/ Respondents No. 1 to 5 under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded Rs. 19,66,976/- as compensation in a fatal accident case.

2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 07.04.2018 Ajay Vastrakar, after finishing his work, was going to his house at village Deori Padhi. At about 10:00 pm, when he reached near asphalt plant of village Mopka, Ajay Vastrakar collided with paver machine No. 13091379 (hereinafter referred to “offending vehicle”) parked on middle of the road in negligent manner by non-applicant no. 1/ Respondent No. 6, without showing any indication of the vehicle. In the accident, Ajay Vastrakar suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries. Accident was reported by Krishna Kumar Vastrakar on 08.04.2018 to police station-Sarkanda, district-Bilaspur (CG), based on which Crime No. 219/18 was registered against driver of Paver machine for alleged offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

3. Appellants who are widow and children of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 37,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 34 years of age. He was doing the work of mason and construction of building on contract, was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month to support his family.

4. Respondent No. 6/ Non-applicant No. 1 -driver of the offending vehicle filed his reply to the claim application, denying the adverse pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle, the deceased himself was driving his vehicle rashly and carelessly due to which he met with an accident. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant no. 3.

5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Ajay Vastrakar, while driving his motor cycle no. CG-10-Z-1197 negligently collided with a offending vehicle parked on the track and met with an accident. The applicants have not made the owner and insurer of the motor cycle as parties, therefore, the application is not maintainable. It was denied that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. On the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. Registration, permit, fitness certificate, insurance certificate and other documents have not been submitted by non-applicant No. 1 and 2 to the insurance company nor the insurance company was informed about the alleged accident. Thus, non-applicant No. 1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Ajay Vastrakar died due to fatal injuries received by him in the accident arising out of negligent parking of offending vehicle without any indication, warning indicator lights by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the compensation and awarded Rs. 19,66,976/- and fastened liability to satisfy the award on non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company.

7. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the claim application overlooking the fact that negligence on the part of owner of the vehicle i