( 1 ) THE appellant herein is the second respondent Insurance Company in o. P. No. 155 of 1991 on the file of the Motor vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, nizamabad. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case leading to the filing of this appeal are briefly as follows: ( 3 ) THE first petitioner is the wife, second petitioner is the father, third petitioner is the brother, fourth petitioner is the sister and petitioners 5 and 6 are the children of the deceased Errolla Devanna who died in a road accident on 26-4-1991 at about 8. 00 p. m. The lorry of first respondent was stationed in the middle of the road for undertaking some repairs. At that time the deceased came on a scooter and dashed against the stationed lorry. Due to the said hit, the deceased received injuries and died instantaneously. The deceased was 30 years old and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing agriculture. The petitioners filed the above O. P. claiming a sum of rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the accident. ( 4 ) THE first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed a counter alleging that the accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased, that the deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the claim of the petitioners is excessive and requested to dismiss with costs. ( 5 ) THE petitioners in support of their claim examined Pws. 1 to 3 and marked exs. A-1 to A-5. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. ( 6 ) THE tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the petitioners held that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the lorry and awarded a sum of Rs. 95,400/- towards compensation under all the heads. ( 7 ) THE Insurance Company being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 3-7-1993 preferred this appeal challenging the said order as arbitrary and illegal and requested to hold that the deceased was totally responsible for the accident and exonerate the Insurance company from liability. 95,400/- towards compensation under all the heads. ( 7 ) THE Insurance Company being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 3-7-1993 preferred this appeal challenging the said order as arbitrary and illegal and requested to hold that the deceased was totally responsible for the accident and exonerate the Insurance company from liability. ( 8 ) THE point for consideration is whether the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry and whether the insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation? ( 9 ) THE petitioners averred that the lorry bearing No. TCX 5589 was stationed in the middle of the road and that the driver did not put any single lights regarding the parking of the vehicle and that the accident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 is an eyewitness to the accident and he deposed that at the time of accident, he was going on a cycle from mandora to Mopkal on the side of the road. The deceased came on a scooter and crossed his cycle went ahead for about 25 yards on the same road. A lorry was found stationed in the middle of the road for the purpose of repairs due to mechanical defect. There were no signals or danger lights to the lorry or near by the lorry to indicate the people going on the road that the lorry was stationed in the middle of the road. Ex. A-1 certified copy of the F. I. R. and Ex. A-2 copy of the inquest report referred the name of p. W. 2 as a witness to the accident. There was a mention in Ex. A-2 that as there were no parking signals for the stationed lorry, the accident occurred. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even if there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in not keeping some signals or lights to indicate the parking of the vehicle, since the deceased hit the parking vehicle, it shall be held that the deceased contributed negligence to the maximum extent. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even if there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in not keeping some signals or lights to indicate the parking of the vehicle, since the deceased hit the parking vehicle, it shall be held that the deceased contributed negligence to the maximum extent. ( 12 ) WHEN ever there is a trouble to any vehicle proceeding on the road, it is supposed to be taken to the extreme left side of the road for the purpose of undertaking repairs and the driver of the said vehicle is supposed to keep some lights or marks indicating the parking of the vehichle, otherwise the drivers of the vehciles are likely to gain an impression that the vehicle noticed in front was proceeding further. In the present case there is evidence to the effect that no signals were arranged indicating that the lorry was out of order. No stones or bricks were placed near the lorry. The driver of the lorry is not produced to give evidence as to what were the precautions he had taken to indicate that the lorry was stationed in the middle of the road, for the smooth running of the vehicles passing on the road. The owner of the lorry also did not enter the witness box to prove the manner in which the accident took place on account of the negligence of the deceased himself in driving the scooter. When there is specific evidence adduced by the petitioners through P. W. 2 who is a witness to the accident and when they have specified the deficiencies on the part of the driver of the lorry, the burden is on the owner and the driver of the lorry to disprove the manner of accident as narrated y the petitioners. ( 13 ) THE tribunal after taking into consideration the occurrence of the accident during night time, the non arranging of the signals and other blocks to indicate that the lorry has been stationed, has rightly come to a conclusion that negligence was on the part of the driver of the lorry. ( 13 ) THE tribunal after taking into consideration the occurrence of the accident during night time, the non arranging of the signals and other blocks to indicate that the lorry has been stationed, has rightly come to a conclusion that negligence was on the part of the driver of the lorry. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant could not successfully resist the reasoning given by the tribunal and I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. ( 15 ) REGARDING the quantum of compensation the learned Counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that since there is no unreasonableness in fixing the quantum of compensation he is not very particular about the quantum of compensation. ( 16 ) IN the light of the above circumstances the appeal shall fail. ( 17 ) IN the result the appeal is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.