parked on the middle of the road and therefore, it was the driver of the lorry and the insurer of the lorry, who are liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased Ramakrishnan. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Ramakrishnan, by placing reliance on Ex.R-1, photograph, which reflected the manner in which the lorry was parked. Admittedly, the Insurance Company did not file the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report or any other document to show the manner in which the lorry was parked. At the same time, the Tribunal, in para No.16 of the order, had rendered a specific finding that "only a portion of the wheel on the rear side is seen to be parked in the 4 lane." This finding of the Tribunal only indicates that the lorry was not parked properly and a portion of the rear side wheel had protruded onto the road. Such parking of the lorry, in our opinion, endangers the safety of other motorists plying on the road. The accident had taken place at the day time in a four lane road, where there was enough and sufficient space for plying the vehicles. While so, the driver of the car ought to have exercised prudence and caution. But it cannot be gainsaid that the entire negligence is attributable on the part of the driver of the car alone. Therefore, we are of the view that some negligence is attributable towards the driver of the lorry. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not correct in fixing the entire liability on the part of the driver of the car alone, instead it ought to have fixed the negligence to some extent on the driver of the lorry. Having regard to our above conclusion, we fix 40% negligence on the driver of the lorry and the remaining 60% negligence on the part of the driver of the car.
