JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - Both, the insurance company as well as the claimant are before Court assailing the judgment and award dated 28.01.2011 passed in M.V.C. No.1040/2009 on the file of the Fast Track Court and Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Saundatti. 2. The insurer has filed the appeal in M.F.A. No.22246 of 2011 challenging the liability as well as on the ground that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation, whereas the claimant has filed the crossappeal in M.F.A. Crob. No.827/2011 praying for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Even though the appeal and cross-appeal are listed for Admission, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the same is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the damages caused to the lorry bearing registration No.KA-22/A-5909. It is stated that on 17.12.2008, when the lorry bearing No.KA-22/A- 5909 was proceeding towards Ranebennur from Saundatti, and had reached near Totad-Yellapur village, due to air defect, the lorry did not move further. Therefore, the driver of the lorry took the lorry to the extreme left side of the road and got down to see as to what exactly had happened. It was about 11.00 p.m. in the night. At that time, a lorry belonging to VRL Company, bearing registration No.MH-13/G-6640 came from backside in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the stationed lorry of the claimant, due to the said accident damage was caused to lorry of the claimant, and claiming compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- a claim petition was filed. In response to the notice, the respondents appeared and filed objections denying the claim petition averments. The claimant, in support of his claim, got examined himself as P.W.1, apart from marking the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12. The claimant also examined one more witness, a mechanic who repaired the truck, as P.W.2. The respondent-insurance company marked Ex.R.1, but did not lead any oral evidence. The Tribunal, based on the material placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,09,000/- on the following heads: 1. Repair Charges 51,000/- 2. Spare parts charges 1,40,000/- 3. Loss of income during repair 18,000/- The Tribunal held that respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the damages. The Tribunal, based on the material placed before it, awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,09,000/- on the following heads: 1. Repair Charges 51,000/- 2. Spare parts charges 1,40,000/- 3. Loss of income during repair 18,000/- The Tribunal held that respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to pay the damages. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is before this Court in this appeal, and the claimant is in cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. G.N.Raichur, through Video conference and the learned counsel for the cross objector/claimant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurer of the lorry bearing No.MH-13/G-6640. It is his submission that the lorry bearing No.KA-22/A-5909 could not have been parked on the highway and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Further, he relies on the decision of this Court in M.F.A. No.102501/2015 C/w M.F.A. No.102500/2015 disposed of on 28.06.2019. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also invites the attention of this Court on Ex.P.2-complaint made by the cleaner of the lorry. It is the submission that the lorry was parked without their being lights on. Hence, the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-22/A-5909 is solely responsible for the accident and no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH-13/G-6640. Further, the learned counsel submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and prays for reduction of the compensation. It is his submission that the Tribunal could not have awarded compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- for spare part charges and Rs.51,000/- for repair charges. It is his submission that there is no material to award Rs.1,40,000/-towards spare parts charges. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant, who has filed cross-objection praying for enhancement of damages, submits that what is awarded by the Tribunal is on the lesser side and looking to the material, submits that it is a case for enhancement. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal failed to look into the bills on record and to grant compensation accordingly. It is also his submission that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during repair period is very less. Thus, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 8. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal failed to look into the bills on record and to grant compensation accordingly. It is also his submission that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income during repair period is very less. Thus, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel for the cross-objector/claimant and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration. i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the appellantinsurance company? ii) Whether the cross-objector/claimant would be entitled for the enhanced compensation? 9. The answer to the above Point Nos.i) and ii) would be in the affirmative and negative for the following reasons: (a) The accident which occurred on 17.12.2008 involving lorry bearing No.KA-22/A-5909 and another lorry bearing No.MH-13/G-6640 and the damages caused to the lorry bearing No.KA-22/A-5909 is not in dispute in this appeal. The insurance company is praying for absolving it from the liability and alternatively to reduce the compensation. The accident had taken place at 11.00 p.m. on 17.12.2008. It is an admitted fact that the lorry bearing No.KA-22/A-5909, due to air defect, was not moving further and it was parked on the extreme left side of the road. The lorry bearing No.MH-13/G-6640 came from backside and dashed to the lorry in question. In the complaint, the complainant stated that due to air block, the lorry could not be moved further and when the driver, along with the complainant, got down and checking the lorry, the other lorry bearing No.MH-13/G-6640 came from backside and dashed to the lorry bearing No.KA-22/A- 5909. (b) Section 122 of the Act states that no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall allow the vehicle 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 as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is stated in the complaint that as the lorry could not be moved due to air blockage, the driver and the cleaner got down to check the same and, at that time, the offending lorry came from behind and dashed to the stationed lorry. In the present facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the person in charge of the motor vehicle had allowed the vehicle to remain at rest or abandoned the vehicle so as to cause danger or obstruction. The decision of this Court referred to supra also would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, there is no contra evidence by the appellant-insurance company. P.W.1 is crossexamined by the appellant-insurance company but nothing is elicited from his cross-examination. Except the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA- 22/A-5909, nothing is suggested with regard to parking of the vehicle. The insurance company has failed to examine the driver of the offending lorry to say that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the parked lorry. Thus, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry i.e., the lorry bearing No.MA-13/G-6640. (c) Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. The learned counsel submitted that Ex.P.7 would indicate that the new chasis would cost Rs.1,07,979 and Ex.P.9 would indicate that the claimant has incurred Rs.50,600/- towards repair charges. P.W.2 is the mechanic who repaired the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards spare parts charges. There is no material or bills placed on record to the extent of Rs.1,40,000/-. Ex.P.7, the bill would indicate that Rs.1,07,979 towards purchase of chasis. Except that, no material was placed on record to show the purchase of spare parts. Ex.P.9 would indicate Rs.50,600/- towards repair charges. In the absence of any bill for the entire Rs.1,40,000/-, the claimant would not be entitled for the same. The claimant would be entitled to an extent of Rs.1,07,979 as per Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. The claimant would be entitled for a sum of rs.50,600/- as per Ex.P.9 towards repair charges. Ex.P.9 would indicate Rs.50,600/- towards repair charges. In the absence of any bill for the entire Rs.1,40,000/-, the claimant would not be entitled for the same. The claimant would be entitled to an extent of Rs.1,07,979 as per Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. The claimant would be entitled for a sum of rs.50,600/- as per Ex.P.9 towards repair charges. The tribunal has granted Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income during the repair period, which is not disturbed or interfered with. No ground is made out to entertain the cross-appeal. Hence, the petitioner would be entitled for the revised compensation as follows: 1. Repair Charges Rs. 51,000/- 2. Spare parts charges Rs.1,07,979/- 3. Tail lamp Rs. 280/- 4. Loss of income during Repair Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs.1,77,259/- Thus, the claimant would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,77,259/-, as against Rs.2,09,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Thus, the appeal of the insurance company is allowed in part and the cross-objections filed by the claimant is rejected. Amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.