ORDER J.S. Narang, J. - This judgment would dispose of FAO Nos. 3987, 3988 and 3989 of 2004, as all of them have arisen from a common judgment dated May 18, 2004, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The three claims, filed against the appellant along with others, had been clubbed and decided together as they had arisen from one and the same accident of the vehicle. The facts are being taken from FAO No. 3987 of 2004. 2. M/s. P.M. Enterprises, owned and controlled by Parkash Mohan Mall, used to run taxi service under an agreement with Larson and Tubro Limited. Pursuant to the contract, Parkash Mohan Mall used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month approximately. It was on August 20, 1998, he along with his uncle Bishnu Mohan Mall were travelling by their own car, bearing Registration No. DL2CD2898, from Faridabad to Deoria via Lucknow for visiting his ailing brother. When they reached Ram Sanehi Ghat beyond Barabanki, a bus bearing Registration No. UP-78-B-2362 belonging to U.P. State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") being driven by respondent No. 2 Sharda was dangerously parked on the berm of the highway. No indication of the stationary bus having been parked was put up. A head on collision occurred which resulted in the death of Parkash Mohan Mall, his uncle was also hurt and he received grevious injuries. FIR No. 36 dated 20.8.1998, was duly registered at Police Station Ram Sanehi Ghat, Barabanki. Three claim applications had been filed by the claimants claiming compensation for the damage caused to the car, the injuries suffered by Bishnu Mohan Mall and also the compensation for loss of life. 3. The petition had been contested by the appellant by way of filing a detailed written statement by raising number of pleas and the preliminary objections. It has been pleaded that the accident had taken place on 20.8.1998, whereas, the claim petitions had been filed on 1.4.2002. Thus, the same are hopelessly barred by time and the same deserve to be dismissed. It is the plea that the bus stated to be involved in the accident was being pulled/tochained by another bus. It has been pleaded that the accident had taken place on 20.8.1998, whereas, the claim petitions had been filed on 1.4.2002. Thus, the same are hopelessly barred by time and the same deserve to be dismissed. It is the plea that the bus stated to be involved in the accident was being pulled/tochained by another bus. It has also been pleaded that the bus had been parked on the kutcha berm of the road and that the car driven by Parkash Mohan Mall struck against the stationary bus in the process of saving a dog, which in fact had struck against the said vehicle. Thus, the accident took place on account of the fault of the car driver alone. Similar plea has been taken by the driver Sharda Parsad Shukla. Upon the pleadings of the parties, issues had been struck and the parties led ocular as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleas, to prove the issues accordingly. 4. The Tribunal has given a categoric finding that the accident in question took place due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver and so also the negligent conduct of the driver of the bus. It has been observed that no sufficient warning or statutory indication for the on- coming traffic had been placed and, therefore, the negligence of the bus Driver stands established. 5. So far as the quantum is concerned, the only plea set up is that the amount awarded is unjust, mala fide and arbitrary in the eyes of law. It has also been contended that the FIR was registered against the driver and appellant as a matter of routine but the true and correct facts have not been divulged therein. Since the bus was stationary and had been parked on the berm of the road, attributing any fault of the driver could not be maintained. Thus, for the mistake of the driver of the car, the appellant cannot be held liable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has returned a very fair and categoric finding upon the issues and upon conclusion thereon the correct relief has been granted to the respective claimants. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has returned a very fair and categoric finding upon the issues and upon conclusion thereon the correct relief has been granted to the respective claimants. So far as negligence on the part of the bus driver is concerned, it is borne out from the record that the bus had broken down and had been parked on the Kutcha berm of the road and for parking such a vehicle the stipulation provided under law had not been complied with. It is obvious that no vehicle, which is disabled or otherwise can be allowed to be parked in a manner which may cause impediment to the free flow of the traffic. For such intemperate parking, a penalty has been provided under Section 201 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is nowhere the case of the appellant that any information had been provided to the concerned authorities for towing the vehicle for the purpose of removing the impediment. In this regard, it shall be apposite to notice Section 201 of the Act, which reads as under :- "201. Penalty for causing obstruction to free flow of traffic : (1) Whoever keeps a disabled vehicle on any public place, in such a manner, so as to cause impediment to the free flow of traffic, shall be liable for penalty upto fifty rupees per hour, so long as it remains in that position : Provided that the vehicle involved in accidents shall be liable for penalty only from the time of completion of inspection formalities under the law : Provided further that where the vehicle is removed by a Government agency, towing charges shall be recovered from the vehicle owner or person in-charge of such vehicle. (2) Penalties or towing charges under this section shall be recovered by such officer or authority as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise." It is the bounden duty of a driver of such a vehicle to give sufficient warning or statutory indication to the on-going traffic. (2) Penalties or towing charges under this section shall be recovered by such officer or authority as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise." It is the bounden duty of a driver of such a vehicle to give sufficient warning or statutory indication to the on-going traffic. It has been specifically provided under Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Rules") that what lights have to be kept switched on when the vehicle is kept or left stationary on the road, even if the vehicle is not disabled as envisaged under Section 201 of the Act. The aforestated rule reads as under :- "109. Parking light : Every construction equipment vehicle and every motor vehicle other than three-wheelers of engine capacity not exceeding 500cc motorcycles and three-wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided with one white or amber parking-light on each side in the front. In addition to the front lights, two red-parking one on each side in the rear shall be provided. The front and rear parking lights shall remain lit even when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road : Provided these rear-lamps, can be the same as the rear-lamps referred to in Rule 105, sub-rule (2) : Provided further in the case of agricultural tractors, parking lights shall be mounted on the rear mudguards so that the lights are visible from the front and also from the rear : Provided also that construction equipment vehicles, which are installed with flood light lamps or spot lights at the front, rear or side of the vehicle for their off-highway or construction operations, shall have separate control for such lamps or lights and these shall be permanently switched-off when the vehicle is travelling on the road." 7. Admittedly, no evidence has been brought on record to show that the requirement, as aforestated, had been followed by the driver of the offending vehicle. However, to grant further safety measure to be adopted by the drivers, an amendment has been carried out to Rule 138 of the Central Rules to the effect that indicative triangles of size 150mm with a red reflecting surface as per the specifications of the Bureau of Indian Standards would be kept in front and rear of the vehicle in case the vehicle is stranded on the road. It shall be apposite to notice the amendment promulgated, which reads as under :- "138. Signals and additional safety measures for motor vehicle. - (1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall make such signals and on such occasions as are specified in the regulations made under Section 118. (2) The driver of a motor cycle shall, in addition to the safety measures mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 128, comply with the requirements of Rule 123. (3) In a motor-vehicle in which seat-belts have been provided under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 125 or Rule 125-A, as the case may be, it shall be ensured that the driver, and the person seated in front seat or the persons occupying front facing rear seats, as the case may be, wear the seat belts while the vehicle is in motion. (4) On and after expiry of one year from the date of commencement of the Central motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1999, the driver of every vehicle shall ensure that the following items are carried in the vehicle, namely - (a) in case of vehicles other than motor cycles, a set of spare bulbs for headlamp and fuses, and a separate wheel ready for use; (b) tool kit as prescribed by the manufacturer; (c) triangles of size 150mm with a red reflecting surface as per IS : 8339- 1993 specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards, for keeping in front and rear of the vehicle in case the vehicle is stranded on the road (applicable to vehicles other than two and three-wheelers), as specified below, namely :- one triangle in case of four wheelers with GVW not exceeding 7.5 tons; two trangles in case of four-wheelers with GVW exceeding 7.5 tons : Provided that in case of vehicles manufactured on and after Ist January, 2003, the triangles of size and specification shall conform to AIS : 022-2001, as may be amended from time to time, till such time as corresponding Bureau of Indian Standards specifications are notified; xxx xxx xxx xxx". It may be noticed that the aforestated amendment was carried out in the year 2002 and has been made effective with effect from October 10, 2002. This may not be applicable to the case at hand. It may be noticed that the aforestated amendment was carried out in the year 2002 and has been made effective with effect from October 10, 2002. This may not be applicable to the case at hand. Nevertheless it has been provided under the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Road Regulations") wherein it has been provided that every Driver of a motor vehicle while parking the vehicle on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstructions or undue inconvenience to other road users and if the manner of parking is indicative by any signboard or making marking on the road, he shall park his vehicle in such manner. In this regard, it shall be apposite to notice rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads as under :- "15. Parking of the vehicle. - (1) Every driver of a motor vehicle parking on any road shall park in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users and if the manner of parking is indicated by any sign board or making marking on the road side, he shall park his vehicle in such manner". 8. The driver of the appellant did not comply with the requirements provided under law, as no evidence in this regard has been brought on record by the appellant. Thus, the Tribunal has correctly inferred the negligence on the part of the driver of the appellant as well. So far as the compensation awarded to the claimants is concerned, the same is justified and reasonable, as such, no interference is called for. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.