JUDGMENT : R.M.CHHAYA , J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award dated 27.5.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Jamnagar in MACP nos.611/09, 612/09, 631/09, 682/09, 683/09, 21/10, 22/10, 255/10, 278/10, 279/10 and 280/10, the insurance Company of the truck involved in the accident has preferred these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). As common grounds are raised in these appeals and the same set of evidence is considered by the Tribunal, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Heard Dr. Rushang Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant in all the appeals, Mr. Makbul Mansuri, learned advocate for the original claimant in First Appeal nos.5685/19 & 5738/19, Mr. Jaimin Pandya, learned advocate for Mr. Premal S. Rachh, learned advocate for the original claimants in First Appeal nos.5685/19 to 5694/19 and Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate for Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. in all the appeals. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. As only short issue of negligence arises in these appeals, these appeals were heard together and with consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal forthwith. 3. The facts as narrated in First Appeal no.5685 of 2019 arising out of claim petition no.21 of 2010 is taken as basis of this judgment and order. 4. Following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeals:- 4.1 That, the accident took place on 1.11.2009 at about 11:30 p.m. It is the case of the original claimants that the deceased along with the family members were traveling in a Toyota Qualis Car bearing registration no. GJ- 3 Y-311 from Dwarka to Jamnagar and when they reached near Village Kuranga, the accident occurred, wherein Toyota Qualis Car dashed with the truck bearing registration no. GJ-10 W-7624 which was parked in the middle of the road without putting any signal lights, indicators. An FIR was lodged with Kalyanpur Police Station bearing CR no. I-85/09. The present claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Act. GJ-10 W-7624 which was parked in the middle of the road without putting any signal lights, indicators. An FIR was lodged with Kalyanpur Police Station bearing CR no. I-85/09. The present claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, partly allowed all claim petitions as under:- Sr. No. MACP no. Compensation claimed Compensation granted 1 611/09 Rs.8,00,000/- Rs.3,07,236/- 2 612/09 Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.4,20,000/- 3 631/09 Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.6,21,376/- 4 682/09 Rs.6,00,000/- Rs.1,42,056/- 5 683/09 Rs.7,00,000/- Rs.1,82,056/- 6 21/10 Rs.22,00,000/- Rs.7,00,000/- 7 22/10 Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.76,490/- 8 255/10 Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.1,31,390/- 9 278/10 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.57,560/- 10 279/10 Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.1,66,240/- 11 280/10 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.51,080/- Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance Company of the truck has preferred these appeals. 5. The only ground in these appeals is as regards the negligence. Relying upon the Panchnama at Exh.106 and the FIR at Exh.105, it was contended by Dr. Mehta that the Tribunal, having read the Panchnama, has not only misread the Panchnama and its contents, but has wrongly come to the conclusion that the driver of the truck was solely negligent. Dr. Mehta extensively took this Court to the contents of the Panchnama and contended that because of the technical failure, the truck was required to be parked on the correct i.e. left side of the road and even the drum of the tyres was kept as obstacle. Dr. Mehta contended that the manner in which the accident has taken place is solely because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the Toyota Qualis Car. Dr. Mehta further contended that from the extent of damage caused to the truck and Toyota Qualis Car, the same exhibits that the Toyota Qualis Car was being driven that too during late night hours in such a speed that the same got damaged and even the steering of the Car was damaged. According to Dr. Mehta, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on negligence to the effect that the driver of the truck alone was negligent is erroneous. According to Dr. Mehta, it is the case of the contributory negligence and drivers of both the vehicles should be equally held to be liable. According to Dr. Mehta, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on negligence to the effect that the driver of the truck alone was negligent is erroneous. According to Dr. Mehta, it is the case of the contributory negligence and drivers of both the vehicles should be equally held to be liable. On the sole ground, it was contended that this Court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction and allow these appeals. 6. Per contra, Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate for the insurance Company of the Toyota Qualis Car has opposed the appeals and has submitted that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence of FIR at Exh.105 and Panchnama at Exh.106 and no interference is called for. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Mansuri as well as Mr. Jaimin Pandya, learned advocate for Mr. Premal S. Rachh, learned advocate for the original claimants submitted that this Court may pass appropriate orders. 8. No other or further submissions, averments, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 9. The short question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the findings arrived at by the Tribunal to the effect that the driver of the truck alone was solely negligent for the accident in light of the evidence of FIR at Exh.105 and the Panchnama at Exh.106 is correct or not? The Tribunal in Paragraph 18.1 of the impugned judgment and award has considered Panchnama as well as FIR. It is recorded by the Tribunal that the truck was parked on the extreme left side of the tar road due to technical error. Having appreciated the said fact, the Tribunal observed thus:- “No reflector or signals were found on the truck which resulted into accident.” The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the driver of the truck bearing registration no. GJ-10 W-7624 was solely negligent. 10. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record on record, it clearly appears that in the FIR at Exh.105 which is given by one of the passenger who was traveling in Toyota Qualis Car has stated that the truck was lying on the road on stationary condition without any reflector and the Toyota Qualis Car dashed with the said truck form behind. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record in form of Panchnama, it clearly appears that Toyota Qualis Car is damaged to such an extent that the driver side doors are also completely damaged and even the seats of Toyota Qualis Car are damaged and even the front as well as rear glasses are found to be broken. The Panchnama further recites that the damage to Toyota Qualis Car was to such an extent that it was required to be cut for rescuing the persons inside and even to remove the dead bodies. Upon reappreciation of the Panchnama, it is a matter of fact that the truck was lying stationary without any reflector that too at night at 11:30 which, as rightly recorded by the Tribunal, is in breach of the Motor Vehicle Rules and therefore, the driver of the truck has acted in most irresponsible manner. The Panchnama further shows the extent of damage to Toyota Qualis Car. It is no doubt true that the truck is a heavy vehicle and Toyota Qualis Car in comparison to truck is a light vehicle, however, it is a sturdy and bigger vehicle than sedan car. The extent of damage caused to Toyota Qualis Car clearly shows the speed at which it has dashed with the stationary truck almost half of the part including the chasis of Toyota Qualis Car is damaged because of the accident. This also establishes the speed at which Toyota Qualis Car was being driven. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, though the truck was being parked at night on highway without any reflector, it cannot be said that the truck driver was alone responsible. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the driver of the Toyota Qualis Car also should have been very careful while driving at night hours on a highway. Upon reappreciation of the Panchnama and the extent of damage to Toyota Qualis Car, we are of the opinion that the driver of the truck was more negligent and therefore, we hold that the driver of the truck was negligent to the extent of 80%, whereas, driver of the Toyota Qualis Car was negligent to the extent of 20%. 11. As far as the quantum is concerned, the award stands unaltered. 11. As far as the quantum is concerned, the award stands unaltered. The impugned judgment and award is only modified on the aspect of negligence and rest of the impugned judgment and award remains as it is. The appellant – insurance Company shall be refunded 20% of the amount on respondent no.7 – insurance Company depositing rest of the 20% amount with interest and proportionate cost. Respondent no.7 shall deposit its share of 20% within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment and order and thereafter, the amount of 20% deposited with proportionate cost and interest be refunded to the appellant by the Tribunal. 12. The appeals are thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to remit the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.