JUDGMENT : The present appeal is against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 1308/2011. 2. The case of the claimants/respondents in short is as under : On 23-11-2011 at about 7.00 p.m., deceased Rajesh Pillewar was proceeding from Kuhi to Nagpur on his Hero Honda motorcycle No. MH-31-BF-7275. When he reached at the outskirts of Village, Lanjala, Tahsil Kuhi, offending truck bearing no. MH-40-N-100 was standing stationary in the middle of the road without any indicator, tail lamp etc. Deceased Rajesh could not notice the said truck and dashed to the said truck from backside. Deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. On the next day, First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the driver of the truck and also deceased. Spot panchanama etc. was carried out. Chargesheet was filed against the driver of the truck. Legal heirs of deceased/respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed claim petition. The said claim petition is allowed with direction to the owner and insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 10,97,608/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization of amount. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Bhuibhar for the appellant – insurance company. He has pointed out FIR and submitted that accident took place due to contributory negligence of deceased as well as truck driver. Therefore, insurance company is liable to pay 50% of the compensation. 4. None appeared for the respondent no. 4. 5. Heard Shri Asole, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. He has pointed out decision of the Apex Court in the case of Archit Saini and anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. [ (2018)3 SCC 365 ]. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “presumption against persons parking vehicle in middle of National Highway in a negligent manner, without indicator or parking lights the person dashing against such vehicle is not liable for contributory negligence.” 6. There is no dispute that as per the spot panchanama, offending truck insured by the appellant was parking on the road without any indicator, without any tail lights etc. The deceased could not notice the said truck and, therefore, dashed from the backside. Accident took place because deceased could not notice truck standing on the road. Precaution as required was not taken by the truck driver when truck was parked on the road. The deceased could not notice the said truck and, therefore, dashed from the backside. Accident took place because deceased could not notice truck standing on the road. Precaution as required was not taken by the truck driver when truck was parked on the road. 7. Learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that though FIR was registered against the deceased but in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Archit Saini and anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. (supra), it cannot be said that it was accident caused due to contributory negligence on the part of deceased. 8. Learned Advocate Shri Bhuibhar has pointed out FIR and submitted that deceased was equally liable for the accident. Reasons are recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph no. 8 of the judgment. In paragraph no. 8 of the judgment, it is observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner was not present at the time of accident and, therefore, there was no question of witnessing the accident. But FIR is registered on next day of the accident by Police Head Constable Shri Purshottam Dudhkohale. As per the FIR, he received information about the accident and then he went to the spot of accident. He saw that motorcycle was lying on the backside of the truck. There is nothing on record to show that FIR was lodged on the basis of any concrete evidence. No any eye witness was examined by any of the party. It cannot be said that deceased was negligent only because crime was registered against him. Police Head Constable though not examined but contents of FIR show that he received the information about the accident dated 23-11-2011. He went to the spot and thereafter he registered the crime. 9. There is nothing on record to show that accident took place due to contributory negligence on the part of deceased. On the other hand spot panchanama shows that offending truck was parked on the road without any parking light, tail lamp etc. Therefore, deceased could not notice the truck and dashed to the said truck, therefore, accident took place. Because of the negligent act of the truck driver, accident took place. Form AA also supports the contentions of the claimants. There is no evidence to show that accident took place due to contributory negligence on the part of deceased. Therefore, deceased could not notice the truck and dashed to the said truck, therefore, accident took place. Because of the negligent act of the truck driver, accident took place. Form AA also supports the contentions of the claimants. There is no evidence to show that accident took place due to contributory negligence on the part of deceased. There is no dispute about the other aspects. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.