JUDGMENT : PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.07.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.281 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam.) 1. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. Challenging the award, dated 18.07.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.281 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is filed. 2. In the said M.C.O.P, the claimants, who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein, have made the claim as compensation for the death of one Ramanikumar, who died in the accident that occurred on 03.04.2010. The respondents 1 and 2 are the mother and father of the deceased. 3. The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 03.04.2010, when the deceased travelling along with his friends and relatives in a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN39-W-3669 from Pulikarai to Salem, in spite of giving warning, the Driver of the Tata Sumo, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Sanisanthai, a Lorry bearing Registration No.KA01-C-6109 was parked in the middle of the Highway without any signal. On seeing the lorry, the Driver of the Tata Sumo applied brake. In spite of the efforts taken by the Driver of the Tata Sumo, the Tata Sumo dashed against the lorry. In the said accident, the deceased Ramanikumar died on the spot. In this regard, F.I.R was registered against the Driver of the Lorry in Crime No.273 of 2010 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C on the file of Thoppur Police Station. The respondents 1 and 2 /claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 4. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant - Insurance Company, Insurer of the Tata Sumo, has filed counter contending that the accident occurred only due to the reckless act of the Driver of the Lorry and the allegation made in the claim petition are not true and correct. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the quantum of compensation claimed by Claimants is highly excessive and without any basis. 5. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the quantum of compensation claimed by Claimants is highly excessive and without any basis. 5. Before the Tribunal, mother of the deceased – Rajammal was examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the Insurance Company, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.R1 was marked. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the Driver of the lorry. The Tribunal further held that being insurer of the offending vehicle, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,91,568/- under various heads. 7. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, questioning only the negligence fixed on the Driver of the lorry, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company argued that the lorry was parked with danger lights blinking on it and the Driver of the Tata Sumo only invited the accident without noticing the parked vehicle and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In Support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager reported in 2018 (6) SCC 765 , wherein it has been held as follows: “11. The moot question is whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering Issue 1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, while answering the said Issue 1, analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, including the charge-sheet filed by the appellants and observed thus: “20. In site plan Paper No. 6-C/6 which is filed on record, the breadth of the road in question appears to be 14 ft and about 7 steps kachcha lekh appears at the both sides of the road. In site plan Paper No. 6-C/6 which is filed on record, the breadth of the road in question appears to be 14 ft and about 7 steps kachcha lekh appears at the both sides of the road. This fact is remarkable that the said accident is not of front accident but the accident occurred as a result of collision of the Maruti car on the rear part of the truck in question by the driver of the car in question and the same fact is also mentioned in the evidence of the petitioners. PW 2 Manjeet Singh, driver of the car in question as stated in his cross-examination that he was driving the car behind the truck at the distance of about 10-15 ft. Despite there being the breadth of the road 14 ft pucca, the driver of the car in question kept the vehicle only at the distance of 10-15 ft from the truck which does not appear in accordance with traffic rules. He should have driven the vehicle maintaining the proper distance in order to escape from each circumstance but he has admitted in his cross-examination as PW 2 that, ‘he knows that he should maintain proper distance from the heavy vehicle’. Under such circumstance if the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle, must maintain the proper distance if the proper distance is not maintained then the whole negligence shall be determined on the part of rear vehicle in regard to the occurrence of accident in question. In addition no evidence in regard to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence. 21. In addition no evidence in regard to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence. 21. By the facts mentioned in the petition and by the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 it does not appear reliable that rash and negligent driving in the accident in question was on the part of the driver of the truck in question and for this purpose only by registering of FIR of said accident and submitting of charge-sheet against the driver of the truck in question, the driver of the truck in question cannot be held guilty for the said accident, whereas by the evidence of the petitioner on record this fact comes forward that the accident occurred as the driver of the car in question was not driving the car in question in accordance with traffic rules i.e. the accident occurred as the vehicle was not being driven maintaining proper distance from the truck and it appears clearly that the speed of the car would have been fast whereby the car in question collided with the rear part of the truck in question being uncontrolled and said accident took place. Under such circumstance there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of truck bearing No. UP 32 Z 2397 regarding the accident in question but the same is determined on the part of Manjeet Singh, driver of Maruti car bearing No. UP 02 D 5292. 22. On the basis of the aforesaid interpretation it appears that the said accident did not occur on 28-11-2010 at about 6.45 p.m. at Village Kunda Kashipur- Jashpur Road under area of PS Kunda District Udham Singh Nagar by the driver of the truck bearing No. UP 32 Z 2397 due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and by applying sudden brake but it occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti car bearing No. UP 02 D 5292 in question by Manjeet Singh, driver, wherein Balvinder Kaur who was sitting in the car sustained serious injuries and expired during her treatment on account of serious injuries.” 12. The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court, by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the Maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the Maruti car. The Maruti car was driven by none other than PW 2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the Maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and Maruti car was only 10-15 ft. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 ft wide. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the Maruti car which was following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads thus: “23. Distance from vehicles in front. —The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.” The expression “sufficient distance” has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of 10-15 ft between the truck and Maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the Maruti car must take the blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the The Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary evidence only fixed the negligence on the Driver of the Lorry and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. 11. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the The Tribunal after analysing the oral and documentary evidence only fixed the negligence on the Driver of the Lorry and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. 11. The argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to the negligence fixed on the Driver of the lorry, is not acceptable as the Tribunal while answering question No.1, has clearly held that the Driver of the Lorry alone is responsible for the accident by parking the vehicle in a narrow road without indications. Further, the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to the distance from vehicle in front, is also not applicable to the present case, as the lorry was parked without necessary indications, at any distance, the Driver of the Tata Sumo could not have seen the parked vehicle and in paragraph No.10, the Tribunal has held as follows: “TAMIL” 12. In view of the above, there is no error in fixing the negligence on the Driver of the Lorry and therefore, the findings rendered by the Tribunal warrants no interference. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. (i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the award, dated 18.07.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.281 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam. (ii) The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount together with accrued interest and costs to the credit of claim petition, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 & 2 /claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw the above compensation as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal with proportionate accrued interest and costs. No costs.