Ramachandran Nair, J.

Since we propose to issue some general directions to the State, State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Trivandrum is made additional respondent. Even though Government Pleader requested for time to get views of Government, we do not think opinion of Government is required in the matter, because the directions being issued by us are essentially to enforce Traffic Regulations to prevent road accidents. We therefore proceed to issue orders.

2. The appellants are registered owner and driver respectively of a motorcycle challenging the award passed by the MACT directing appellants to pay 75% of the compensation awarded for the death of the pillion rider of the bike in the accident based on the finding that driver of the motorcycle namely, the second appellant contributed more to the accident on account of his negligence. The accident occurred at 7.45 in the night on the National Highway (NH 47) at a place called Chellakkadu off Palakkad when the motorcycle driven by the second appellant hit behind a parked container lorry causing death of the pillion rider. While the case of the appellants is that accident was purely on account of negligence of the driver of the container truck who parked the container lorry on the National Highway without any burning indicator light or even reflector and the second appellant could not notice the parked vehicle which led to the accident, the contention of the Insurance Company is that the accident was caused on account of negligence of the second appellant who without noticing the parked truck rammed into it. Counsel for the Insurance Company referred to the observation of the MACT in the award that the driver of the motor bike namely, the second appellant was drunk at the time of the accident as stated in evidence by the claimants in the claim petition. Even though no clear finding is rendered by the MACT about drunken driving at the time of accident by the second appellant, the MACT directed 75% of the compensation to be recovered from the registered owner and driver of the motorbike on account of contributory negligence in as much as the accident was caused by the driver of the motorbike hitting behind a parked truck. 25% of the compensation was ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company because the MACT found that driver of the container truck by parking the truck on the National Highway contributed to the accident upto 25%.

3. After hearing counsel appearing for both sides and on going through the award, we feel the finding of the MACT that contributory negligence on the part of the truck driver is only 25% cannot be sustained. Admittedly the container truck was parked in the National Highway in the same direction in which the motorbike was going at the time of accident and but for the parking of the truck on the Highway in the night, this accident probably would not have taken place at all. There is nothing to indicate that the truck had lighted indicators or danger lamps or reflectors in the rear or on the side. Besides this, NH 47 is probably the busiest road passing through Kerala and it is sufficiently wide and has parking space atleast at some places on the road side. Parking of vehicles on main road or on roads carrying fast traffic is expressly prohibited under Rule 15(2)(iv) of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 prescribed by Central Government under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The National Highway is fairly straight and smooth and vehicles driven on the same maintain steady and high speed. In the normal course a driver cannot expect vehicles remaining parked in the night on the Highway and he expects clearance of the road. Though parked vehicles will be visible during day time, drivers may not notice vehicles parked on road in the night if such vehicles do not have proper reflectors or burning indicators and the same will invariably lead to accidents. Though there is allegation that the driver of