THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.902 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.11.2002 in O.P.No.1125 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 19.08.1999 at 11.30 P.M., while the deceased Venkateshwar Reddy was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP28H –9194 from L.B.Nagar to Uppal, and on reaching near Snehapuri colony, dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No.ADT-3679 from behind, as a result of which the deceased received bleeding injuries and was later succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. It was contended by the claimants that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry, by parking the vehicle on the road without switching on the warning lights. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, instead of the deceased himself and the said finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. Now, the point for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the offending lorry is sustainable. In order to prove the accident, before the Tribunal, the first claimant ie., wife of the deceased was examined PW.1 and PW.3, an eye witness to the accident was also examined. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The evidence of PW.3, who is an eye-witness to the accident, clearly shows that there are no street lights on the road and the offending lorry was stationed on the middle of the road. Admittedly, the accident occurred at 11.30 P.M. at mid night, when the lorry was parked on the middle of the road without putting the signal lights on, besides there being no street lights. That being the case, it is not possible for any driver to notice the parking vehicle at that night time. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence of PW.3 that the driver of the lorry stopped the same on the middle of the road without taking any minimum precautions during night time. The learned Judge also placed reliance on the evidence of PW.3. Moreover, Ex.A.1 is the copy of the F.I.R., which indicates that crime was registered against the driver of the offending lorry for his negligence. On a combined reading of the evidence of PW.3 coupled with Ex.A.1, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. The fact that the lorry belongs to 3rd respondent and is insured with the appellant is not in dispute. Therefore, the 3rd respondent and the appellant are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. For the foregoing discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 3rd March, 2011 PNV