The owner of a vehicle parked on a public highway without adequate safety lighting or reflectors bears liability for accidents caused by such obstruction, necessitating the apportionment of negligence between the stationary vehicle and a moving vehicle that fails to avoid the hazard.

JUDGMENT :

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

This Appeal has been filed by the second respondent /Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No. 28 of 2016 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2018, wherein the Tribunal has held that the second respondent shall indemnify the owner of Tempo traveller and pay entire compensation and rejected the contentions of the second respondent that the accident was taken place due to the negligent act of driver of respondent No.4.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to by their litigant status before the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case are that on 05.07.2008, at about 10:30 p.m., the deceased Mr.Sivasubramanian, and others were traveling from Pondicherry to Chennai Airport in a Tempo Traveller with registration number TN 32 C 9663. Near Molasur on the Pondy-Tindivanam National Highway, the driver of the Tempo Traveller drove it rashly and negligently, dashed with a lorry bearing registration number TN 32 B 1459, which was parked on the left side of the road. The accident resulted in injuries to two passengers and also the driver of the Tempo Traveller. Subsequently, both passengers succumbed to their injuries. Two separate claim petitions have been filed by the respective defendants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. In the claim petition, orginally the claimants sought compensation only from the owner and insurer of the Tempo Traveller. Subsequently, after the Insurance Company filed its counter, the owner and insurer of the lorry were also impeaded as parties.

5. The second respondent has filed an counter and additional counter stating that the lorry was improperly parked in the middle of the road and that adequate precautions were not taken, leading to the accident. Therefore, the driver of Lorry is responsible for the accident and the insurer of Tempo traveller is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The second respondent/Insurance Company also contested the quantum of compensation claimed under the various headings, stating it is excessive.

7. The owners of both vehicle have not contested the claim. The fifth respondent, the insurance company of the lorry, has filed a counter, submitting that a criminal case was registered only against the driver of the Tempo Traveller and the final report filed confirming his negligence. Furthermore, the lorry was parked on the left side of the road with due care and caution and that the driver of the Tempo Traveller negligently drove the same at high speed, resulting in the accident. Therefore, the insurer of the lorry is not liable to pay compensation.

8. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined PW-1 to PW-3, and Exhibits P-1 to P-15 were marked. On the side of respondents' No.2, RW-1 and RW-2, were examined.

9. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal has ruled that the driver of Tempo Traveller acted negligently and caused the accident. Consequently, held that the second respondent as insurer shall pay compensation quantified as Rs. 13,54,600/- and to indemnify the first respondent.

10. Aggrieved over the fixing negligence on the driver of the Tempo Traveller to the extent of 100%, the Insurance Company of the Tempo Traveller filed this appeal challenging both the negligence and the quantum of compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/second respondent submitted that there is ample and clear evidence on record to show that the lorry was parked recklessly on the left side of the road without proper safety measures. This fact alone is sufficient to show th