J U D G M E N T

This appellant/Insurance company has come forward with the present appeal, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2012 made in MCOP.No.189 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur.

2. The Brief fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The respondents 1 & 2 are the parents and the respondents 3 & 4 are the brother of the deceased Mahendran. The deceased Mahendran was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing Registration No.TN 23 AV 9509 owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant. On 16.08.2009 at about 01.15 hrs, the lorry driver had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and when the lorry came near ootathur cross road, dashed against another lorry, which was parked in the extreme left sde of the road, bearing Registration No.TN 48 J 0094 belonging to the 5th respondent and insured with the 6th respondent. Due to the said accident, the driver of the lorry and the deceased Mahendran sustained injuries and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, Mahendiran was taken to the Government Hospital, Perambalur but he died in the hospital. Thereafter, the claimants have has filed petition under Section 166 M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur and the same was taken on file as MCOP.

No.189 of 2010.

3. Before the Tribunal, during trial, in order to prove the case, the claimants have examined two witnesses viz., PW1 and PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P8, On the side of the insurance company, one witness was examined and two documents were marked. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.7,08,500/- as compensation to the claimants under various heads, aggrieved by the said award dated 31.10.2012, the appellant/insurance company has filed this appeal before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant Insurance Company when the accident was only due to the negligent of the respondents lorry was parked on the middle of the road without following any traffic rules. The Tribunal failed to consider the rough sketch, charge sheet and evidence of RW1 which clearly substantiates the fact that the accident was due to 3rd respondent lorry being parked middle of the road. Based on oral and documentary evidence let in by the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated appellant from any liability but erred in fastening entire liability on them. The learned counsel would further submit that the Tribunal, without considering the fact, awarded high compensation to the claimants, which is unsustainable one and liable to be interfered.

5. The learned counsel for the 7th respondent submitted that though the appellant specifically filed a counter affidavit stating that the 6th respondent's lorry was parked in the middle of the road. Even assuming that the vehicle was parked in the middle of the road, it is the duty of the lorry driver to drive the lorry in a careful manner. However, the 5th respondent driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked vehicle. The Tribnal has properly adjudicated the issue and fixed the compepnsation against the appellant Insurance company, the same does not require any interference in the hands of this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The facts of the case are not in dipsute. Admittedly, the 5th respondent lorry which was insured with the appellant Corporation, dashed against the stationed lorry owned by the 6th respondent, which was insured with the 7th respondent. It is not disputed that the accident had happened in National Highways. Though the claimants and t