1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : National Insurance Company Ltd., Udaipur Vs. Smt. Kesari & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.928/2010) DATE OF JUDGMENT : November 10, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS __________________________________________ Mr. Sanjeev Johari for the appellant. BY THE COURT : The National Insurance Company Ltd., Udaipur has filed this appeal, in which, challenge has been made to the judgment/award dated 27.05.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.5 cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in MAC Case No.331/2006 (76/05). The main ground of the appellant insurance company is that the award passed by the learned Tribunal which is under challenge is erroneous because the learned Tribunal was to fix more liability upon the offending truck No.RJ- 14/1G – 8406. According to the appellant, learned Tribunal 2 further committed an error on the ground that appellant insurer was liable in the accident for the reason that back- light was not on as stated by the witnesses. The ultimate conclusion of negligence while relying upon the testimony of witnesses of the claimants suffers from illegality. The truck which is insured by the appellant insurance company was standing on the proper side of the road and on the date of accident, i.e. 14.09.2003 at about 5 O'clock in the morning, the offending vehicle which is insured by other insurance company dashed against the stationary truck in the back side and, in view thereof, it was the sole negligence of the offending vehicle and no liability can be imposed upon the stationary truck No.KA-1/AA 5675 which was insured with the appellant insurance company. Further, it is argued that even fact of no parking lights also does not give any ground whatsoever for holding the appellant insurance company liable for compensation because the stationary vehicle was standing on the right side of the road and it was hit by the offending vehicle RJ- 14/1G – 8406, therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal is totally illegal and the finding upon issues No.1 and 1A combined is liable to be modified substantially because the 3 insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and appellant insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the act committed by the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing claim petition. Therefore, the award of Rs.4,30,000/- passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed. I have perused the judgment and record of the case. Admittedly, the vehicle No.KA -1/AA – 5675 which was insured with the present appellant insurance company was standing on the road side and there was no back light and the occurrence took place in the morning at about 5 O'clock on 14.09.2003. Obviously, if any vehicle is standing on the road, then, there must be back-light on, more so, when it was early morning and still dark. Admittedly there is evidence on record that there was no back-light on the stationary vehicle which was insured with the appellant insurance company. Therefore, it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is erroneous. More so, the accident took place due to negligent act of the driver of the vehicle No.KA-1/AA – 5675 and due to his negligence 4 the occurrence took place, in which, Amraji Meena, husband of claimant-respondent No.1 Smt. Kesari Devi and father of respondents No.2 to 7 and son of respondents No.8 and 9 died. Learned Tribunal while taking into consideration entire facts and evidence on record passed the award which cannot be termed as illegal because it is based upon cogent evidence adduced by the claimants. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal. This miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.