THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3321 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in M.V.O.P.No.1606 of 2000 dated 13.03.2004. Third respondent insurance company is the appellant herein. Heard. The brief facts are as follows: On 28.11.1999 the deceased Sivayya was going on his scooter bearing No.AP 31 D 32/3 along with one Srinivas as pillion rider, at about 11.10 p.m. when they reached Union office on National Highway No.5 near Chinagantyada, a vehicle came from opposite direction focusing lights and in that lights, the deceased Sivayya could not identify the road and he dashed the scooter on the rear side of the lorry bearing No.AP 13 T 4059 which was parked in the dark without switching on signal lamps. On account of the injuries received in that accident, he died. A case in Cr.No.159/99 was registered for the accident at Gajuwaka Police Station. The deceased was working as Chargeman in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, getting a salary of Rs.8,788.79ps. The insurance company filed counter denying the allegations. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether P.V.Sivayya died on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration No.AP 13 T 4059 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.9,75,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.12.00 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said quantum, the insurance company filed the present appeal. Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was driving the scooter. He himself went and dashed a parked lorry, as such, there was negligence on the part of the scooterist, at least, there is some contributory negligence and there cannot be any liability on the insurance company. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents herein, who are the claimants in the O.P. is that the offending lorry was parked towards the road side instead of on the extreme left side of the road without any indication like parking lights etc., on account of that the deceased could not locate the standing lorry, which was in dark and the scooter hit the lorry, as such, the negligence is solely on the lorry driver who stopped the lorry. Now, the point for consideration is whether there was also negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter, as such, the compensation ought to have been reduced to the extent of the negligence of the deceased? The facts are not in dispute. While the lorry was standing on the road, the scooter driven by the deceased went and dashed it. Ex.B4 sketch of the scene of offence shows that the lorry was parked 19 feet away from the middle of the road. Its width was 7’8” and another 4 feet road remained after it. Thus, the lorry was not parked on the extreme left side of the road. There is also no material on record to show that the parking lights were on at the time of accident to say that inspite of there being parking lights, the deceased did not care to stop the scooter when he reached near the lorry and that he drove it negligently and dashed against the lorry. In view of the legal position as stands now, when a lorry is parked on the road without any indication of its existence on the road and a vehicle coming from backside dashes it, the negligence has to be treated as that of the parked vehicle only. As such, the contention of the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter cannot be accepted. In view of this, there are no grounds to entertain the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, the rate of interest shall stand reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum on the entire compensation awarded. With this modification with regard to the rate of interest, the order of the trial Court is confirmed. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 19.11.2010 Rns