JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed by the appellant–Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2016, whereby compensation of Rs.11,23,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants for the death of the deceased Sumanthu Chinna Raji Reddy.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.2013, while the deceased was returning home on his motorcycle after attending a function, at about 08:20 PM, he dashed against a tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-15-AG-2710/2711, which was negligently parked on the road without any indicators or precautionary measures. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent parking of the tractor-trailer by its driver, respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants, being the wife, children and parents of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, held that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the offending tractor-trailer by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.11,23,000/-, fastening liability jointly and severally on the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. Assailing the said award, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company, despite there being a clear breach of policy conditions, as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who dashed against the parked vehicle from behind, and therefore, contributory negligence ought to have been attributed. It is also contended that the compensation awarded is excessive.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants contended that the Tribunal, having rightly appreciated the evidence on record, correctly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the offending tractor-trailer and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the Insurance Company failed to establish any breach of policy conditions, particularly with regard to absence of a valid driving licence. It is also submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, reasonable and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be dismissed.

5. Insofar as the aspect of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1– FIR and Ex.A7–charge sheet, recorded a categorical finding that the driver of the tractor-trailer parked the vehicle on the road during night hours without any indicators or precautionary measures, which resulted in the accident. The charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company has failed to place any cogent material on record to rebut the said evidence. The mere contention that the deceased dashed the vehicle from behind, by itself, does not establish negligence on his part, particularly when the vehicle was stationed on the road in darkness without any warning signals. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

6. With regard to the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the drive