ORDER : 1. Appellant-Claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 16.09.2019 passed by Learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 397/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants/ Respondents No. 1 to 5 under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded Rs. 19,66,976/- as compensation in a fatal accident case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 07.04.2018 Ajay Vastrakar, after finishing his work, was going to his house at village Deori Padhi. At about 10:00 pm, when he reached near asphalt plant of village Mopka, Ajay Vastrakar collided with paver machine No. 13091379 (hereinafter referred to “offending vehicle”) parked on middle of the road in negligent manner by non-applicant no. 1/ Respondent No. 6, without showing any indication of the vehicle. In the accident, Ajay Vastrakar suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries. Accident was reported by Krishna Kumar Vastrakar on 08.04.2018 to police station-Sarkanda, district-Bilaspur (CG), based on which Crime No. 219/18 was registered against driver of Paver machine for alleged offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 3. Appellants who are widow and children of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 37,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 34 years of age. He was doing the work of mason and construction of building on contract, was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month to support his family. 4. Respondent No. 6/ Non-applicant No. 1 -driver of the offending vehicle filed his reply to the claim application, denying the adverse pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle, the deceased himself was driving his vehicle rashly and carelessly due to which he met with an accident. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant no. 3. 5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Ajay Vastrakar, while driving his motor cycle no. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant no. 3. 5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased Ajay Vastrakar, while driving his motor cycle no. CG-10-Z-1197 negligently collided with a offending vehicle parked on the track and met with an accident. The applicants have not made the owner and insurer of the motor cycle as parties, therefore, the application is not maintainable. It was denied that the deceased was working as Mason and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. On the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. Registration, permit, fitness certificate, insurance certificate and other documents have not been submitted by non-applicant No. 1 and 2 to the insurance company nor the insurance company was informed about the alleged accident. Thus, non-applicant No. 1 and 2 have violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such non-applicant No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Ajay Vastrakar died due to fatal injuries received by him in the accident arising out of negligent parking of offending vehicle without any indication, warning indicator lights by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the compensation and awarded Rs. 19,66,976/- and fastened liability to satisfy the award on non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the claim application overlooking the fact that negligence on the part of owner of the vehicle is not proved. He next contended that in the facts of the case, accident is on account of self- negligence of the deceased driver of the motorcycle. He lastly contended that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is some negligence on the part of owner of the offending vehicle then it will be a case of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the part of deceased also. In support of his contention, he referred the decision in the cases of Nishan Singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. In support of his contention, he referred the decision in the cases of Nishan Singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 ACJ 1466 , Surendra Kumar Arora vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla , 2012 (3) T.A.C. 353 (SC) , Raj Rani and others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 654 . 8. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 5-claimants would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant-insurance company and would submit that the submission of learned counsel for appellant that there was no negligence on the part of driver and owner of the offending vehicle, is not correct. It is contention of learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 that as per the evidence and pleadings available on record, the offending vehicle was parked on the road in the night without there being any indicator lights or any other sign or signal cautioning the by-passers travelling on the road about parking of the vehicle on the road. He submits that contributory negligence is not automatically attracted only because of collision between two vehicles. He contended that the offending vehicle was parked in the center of the road in the night without any light or indication or any other signals then, it will be the sole negligence on the part of owner and driver of the offending vehicle which was parked on the road in the night. Claims Tribunal justified in recording a finding that the accident is a result of sole negligence on the part of driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Perusal of the pleadings made in the claim application would show that the claimants in their claim application has pleaded in specific terms that the paver machine No. 13091379, Chassis No. CHA-1307025 with engine No. 6H-3001/1300052 was parked dangerously and negligently on the road. The vehicle was not in a running condition and there is no indication/ lights or signals of parking of the vehicle on the road in the night. Non-applicant No. 1 in its reply has denied the fact of accident with the offending vehicle and pleaded that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident. Claimants in support of their claim application have filed copy of F.I.R. as Ext. P-1. Non-applicant No. 1 in its reply has denied the fact of accident with the offending vehicle and pleaded that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident. Claimants in support of their claim application have filed copy of F.I.R. as Ext. P-1. The date of accident is mentioned as 07.04.2018 at 10:00 p.m. and the report is lodged on 08.04.2018 at about 04:30 p.m. In the F.I.R. also similar fact has been mentioned about parking of the offending vehicle. After completion of investigation, police submitted final report against the driver of the offending vehicle mentioning the fact that the offending vehicle was parked on the road negligently without there being any indicating lights or signals. 11. Claimants have examined Smt. Rani Vastrakar, widow of deceased as AW-1, Raju Vastrakar as AW-2. Raju Vastrakar is examined as eye-witness to the accident. In his evidence he categorically stated that at the time of accident he was traveling on his own motorcycle behind the motorcycle of deceased. He stated that offending vehicle was parked on the road. Parking of the offending vehicle on the road in the night unattended by any person without indicating lights and signals, cautioning the other passengers of the road, is negligence on the part of driver and owner of offending vehicle. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case and evidence available on record, the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in recording that there is negligence on the part of owner and driver of offending vehicle is erroneous and is not sustainable, is hereby repelled. The decision relied upon by the counsel for appellant-insurance Company in the case of Nishan Singh (supra) and Surendra Kumar Arora (supra) are distinguishable on the facts. 13. So far as the second ground raised by counsel for appellant that even if there is negligence on the part of driver and owner of the offending vehicle, there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased, rider of motorcycle, as he dashed the stationary vehicle while traveling on his motorcycle. He contended that the Tribunal fell into error in not holding that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Rani (supra). 14. He contended that the Tribunal fell into error in not holding that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Rani (supra). 14. Perusal of spot map which is prepared by the police during course of investigation and filed along with memo of appeal would show the place of vehicle on “A is the place of accident”. From the facts pleaded and contents of F.I.R. and final report, it is appearing that the accident occurred at a place where the offending vehicle was parked on the road. Marking is made in the spot map is not on the side of the road but almost in the center of the road and therefore from the oral evidence of AW-2, spot map placed on record before this Court and the pleadings made in the claim application it clearly shows that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was parked on the road without there being any indicating lights, signals or signs. Parking of the vehicle, even if it suffered mechanical failure, on the road dangerously and negligently on a public place, in particular public road where the persons travel on their motor vehicles is more dangerous when it is parked in night without there being any indicators, lights or sign at a place where there is paucity of light. Especially in the night, where there is less traffic, vehicles move at a considerable speed if not high speed and therefore it may not be possible to apply brakes suddenly immediately after locating or finding dangerously and negligently parked vehicle on the road. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Others , (2002) 6 SCC 455 has observed that where once there is negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. 15. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Sushma vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584 considering the decision in the case of Swadling vs. Cooper , 1931 AC 1 , observed that merely failure to avoid collision through extraordinary precautions does not inherently constitute negligence. It further observed with regard to statutory provisions under the road regulations and observed thus: “ 27 . A highway or a road is a public place as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act:- “ 2(34) “public place” means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;” 28. Section 121 of the Act provides that the driver of a motor vehicle shall make such signals and, on such occasions, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 29. Section 122 of the Act provides that no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any “public place” in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances so as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. 30. Section 126 of the Act provides that no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place. 31. Section 127(2) of the Act provides that where any abandoned, unattended, wrecked, burnt or partially dismantled vehicle is creating a traffic hazard, because of its position in relation to the public place, or its physical appearance is causing the impediment to the traffic, its immediate removal from the public place by a towing service may be authorised by a police officer having jurisdiction. 32. Regulation 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 which were prevailing on the date of the incident provides that every driver of a motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users. 32. Regulation 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 which were prevailing on the date of the incident provides that every driver of a motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users. It casts a duty on the drivers of a motor vehicle stating that the vehicle shall not be parked at or near a road crossing or in a main road. 33. These legal provisions leave no room for doubt that the person in control of the offending truck acted in sheer violation of law while abandoning the vehicle in the middle of the road and that too without taking precautionary measures like switching on 16 the parking lights, reflectors or any other appropriate steps to warn the other vehicles travelling on the highway. Had the accident taken place during the daytime or if the place of accident was well illuminated, then perhaps, the car driver could have been held equally responsible for the accident by applying the rule of last opportunity. But the fact remains that there was no illumination at the accident site either natural or artificial. Since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the road in clear violation of the applicable rules and regulations, the burden to prove that the placement of the said vehicle as such was beyond human control and that appropriate precautionary measures taken while leaving the vehicle in that position were essentially on the person in control of the offending truck. However, no evidence was led by the person having control over the said truck in this regard. Thus, the entire responsibility for the negligence leading to the accident was of the truck owner/driver.” 16. In the case of Archit Saini and another vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others , (2018) 3 SCC 365 while considering parking of the motor vehicle on the road in the night without there being any parking lights/indicators or signals has observed thus: “ 8. After having perused the evidence of PW 7, site map (Ext. In the case of Archit Saini and another vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others , (2018) 3 SCC 365 while considering parking of the motor vehicle on the road in the night without there being any parking lights/indicators or signals has observed thus: “ 8. After having perused the evidence of PW 7, site map (Ext. P-45) and the detailed analysis undertaken by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the approach of the High Court in reversing the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on Issue 1 has been very casual, if not cryptic and perverse. Indeed, the appeal before the High Court is required to be decided on fact and law. That, however, would not permit the High Court to casually overturn the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. As is evident from the analysis done by the Tribunal, it is a well- considered opinion and a plausible view. The High Court has not adverted to any specific reason as to why the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect or not supported by the evidence on record. It is well settled that the nature of proof required in cases concerning accident claims is qualitatively different from the one in criminal cases, which must be beyond any reasonable doubts. The Tribunal applied the correct test in the analysis of the evidence before it.” 17. In the case of Sushma (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered the accident arising out of negligent and dangerous parking of the motor vehicle on the road has observed thus: “ 40. On a holistic analysis of the material available on record, it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic. This omission by the person in control of the said truck was in clear violation of law. The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high. This omission by the person in control of the said truck was in clear violation of law. The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high. In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through the highway in the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision. The situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained. Hence, it is a fit case warranting exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts.” 18. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above, the submission of learned counsel for appellant-insurance company that there was occasion for the deceased to control his vehicle after looking upon the offending vehicle, even if it is parked on the road, and therefore deceased was also contributory negligence, is not sustainable and therefore the said submission is also repelled. 19. No other ground has been raised in this appeal for consideration. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.