IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of contributory negligence and the determination of compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. These cross-appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company as also by the Claimants, challenging the Award dated 10.10.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-01, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT No. 4292/16, titled Smt. Neelam & Ors. v. Pramod Kumar Yadav & Ors..

Challenge/Submissions of the learned Counsel for Insurance Company:

2. As far as the challenge of the Insurance Company to the Impugned Award is concerned, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal, having found that the claimants had been unable to prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, that is, a Tata Dumber bearing no. HR- 46B-3036 (hereinafter referred to as the `offending vehicle'), and awarding compensation to the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') as it then stood, could not have awarded compensation in excess to what is provided under the Second Schedule to the Act.

3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company further challenges the Impugned Award inasmuch as it awards interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) under Section 158(6) of the Act, that is, 27.04.2010, till the realisation of the amount, claiming the same to be excessive.

Challenge/Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Claimants:

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that rashness or negligence cannot be attributed to the offending vehicle, as it was parked on the left side of the road and was not being driven at the time of the accident in question. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jumani Begam v. Ram Narayan and Others, (2020)5 SCC 807, he submits that where the vehicle is parked on the metalled road without proper reflectors, indications, or warning signals, that would also amount to the vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner. He submits that, therefore, the claimants were entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Act as it then stood.

5. On the question of interest, he submits that the same is reasonable and deserves no interference by this Court.

Analysis and Findings:

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The primary question to be determined in the present appeals is whether the learned Tribunal has rightly held that no rashness or negligence can be attributed to the offending vehicle, being parked on a metalled road, and as a consequence thereof, rejecting the claim of the claimants under Section 166 of the Act, however, awarding the same under Section 163A of the Act.

8. To prove their case, the claimants had produced Mr.Virender Singh (PW-2) as an eyewitness to the accident. In his Evidence by way of Affidavit, he stated that on 06.03.2010, when he was standing on the side of his agricultural land near the place of the accident, he saw the offending vehicle being wrongly parked in the middle of the road at main Qutabgarh Road, without parking light on/blinkers or indicators, when the deceased travelling on his motorcycle hit the offending vehicle from the back. In his cross-examination, a doubt was sought to be cast on his presence at the spot of the accident. However, he withstood the same. His presence at the spot of the accident stands estabished. He further reiterated that he had seen the offending vehicle standing in the middle of the road at the time of the accident. He also denied the suggestion that he could not see if the parking lights of the offending vehicle were on.

9. On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle examined himself as R1W1. In his Evidence by way of Affidavit he stated that on 06.03.2010 at about 7:00 PM, t