Akil Kureshi, J.

1. This group of appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharuch dated 10th May 2007, in a group of claim petitions, MACP No.375/05 being treated as the main petition.

2. Briefly stated, facts are that on the fateful day on 1.1.2005, one Kiritkumar Raval along with his family members and neighbours was travelling in his Maruti car from Vadodara to Bharuch on National Highway No.8. At about 10 O’ clock night, a truck which was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company was lying on the road with flat tyre. The car dashed straight against the said stationary truck with considerable force causing instantaneous death of four passengers and bodily injuries to the fifth. Different claim petitions, therefore, came to be filed by the claimants, i.e. injured and the dependents of the deceased travellers. The Maruti car was insured with Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment concluded that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the truck in parking the vehicle on the highway without any signals. The Tribunal went into the details of the earning capacity of the deceased and awarded various amounts to the claimants.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company has questioned this judgment and awards, both on the ground of negligence of the truck driver as well as on the computation of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. In one case, one Nishit Kiritkumar Raval, original claimant, has filed appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company obviously had no cause to appeal but has responded to the notice of the Court and opposed the rival insurance company on the question of negligence of the driver of the Maruti car.

4. We may first deal with the question of negligence. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants examined Seema Ravikumar Sheth, a co-passenger in the Maruti car, at Ex.42. In the examination-in-chief in the form of a sworn affidavit, she stated that on the date of the incident, she along with her husband Ravikumar Sheth, daughter Aakansha and their landlord Kiritkumar Raval and his wife Shobhnaben had gone to Vadodara. When they were returning to Bharuch, a truck was parked on the road with which the Maruti Zen car collided causing the death of all other passengers and causing serious injuries to her. In the cross-examination by the insurer of the Maruti car, she stated that the highway was four-lane road with divider in between. The truck was parked without any reflectors, parking light or signal light. It was lying in the middle of the road. It was dark at the time of the accident and there was nothing to indicate the presence of the truck on the road. The car was being driven by Kiritbhai with all care and caution. The accident occurred because of the truck lying in the middle of the road. In the cross-examination by the insurance company of the truck, she stated that the car headlight was on with which one could see upto a distance of about 100 feet. The car was being driven at a speed of about 80 to 100 k.m. per hour. She agreed that the panchnama was drawn in the same position as the vehicles were at the time of the accident. She specifically denied that the headlight of the truck was on. She denied that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drive of the car.

5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants also produced FIR at Ex.29, which was lodged by the conductor of the truck in which he had stated that he along with the driver of the truck were going towards Bharuch carrying cotton bales. On the way they had a puncture in the tyre of the truck. The truck was then taken on the side for changing the tyre. When he and the driver were in the process of changing the tyre, one Maruti car came at a high speed from Vadodara and collided with the back side of the truck with great force completely smashing the vehicle.

6. Panchnama of the scene of the