VYAS, J. ( 1 ) FINALLY Mr. Trivedi submitted that the bulldozer in question is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under the provisions of section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, Mr. Trivedi relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa A. I. R. 1975 s. C. p. 17. The above-mentioned submission of mr. Trivedi prima facie appears to be quite attractive before one looks at the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act. Section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, reads as under:" motor Vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailor, but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. "reading the definition ofmotor Vehicle it is clear that Motor Vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. That in general is definition of Motor Vehicles. However, an exception has been carved out in the definition and it has been provided that though a machine or a device may be a Motor Vehicle in terms of the aforesaid general definition of the expression motor Vehicle, it would not be a motor Vehicle if either (1) It is running upon fixed rails or (ii) It is a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or any other enclosed premises. Now in order to fall within the exception to the general definition of Motor vehicle, the machinery or the device should be such as runs upon fixed rails which is not the case before us or it should be a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only on a factory or in any other enclosed premises. The argument was that the bulldozer would fall within the later part of the exception carved out in the definition. The argument was that the bulldozer would fall within the later part of the exception carved out in the definition. If a vehicle has to fall within the later part of the exception given in the definition then, firstly, it should be established that it is a vehicle of a special type and secondly, that it is adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. This later part of the exception to the expression of the definition motor Vehicle leaves no room for doubt that in order to attract that later part of the exception the vehicle must be adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises as has been rightly stressed by the learned tribunal. The word only, appearing in the later part of the definition of motor Vehicle has an important part to play while interpreting the definition. If a vehicle of a special type which is adapted for use in a factory or in any other enclosed premises is also capable of being used in could not be said to be adapted for use only in a factory or only in an enclosed premises, and therefore, such a vehicle would not come within the exception to the definition of Motor Vehicle. In order to come within the exception the vehicle should be so adapted as could be used exclusively in a factory or exclusively in an enclosed premises. Here we have got evidence to show that the bulldozer in question at the relevant time was going on a public road. The Tribunal has with deference to the Panchnama on the record and other evidence pointed out that at the time of the accident, the bulldozer was going from the workshop to Kadana Dam site. The Panchnama shows that on one side of the place of accident there are fields and residential houses. The bulldozer was being plied or used or driven on a public road. It was, therefore, not a vehicle which could not have been used on public road. It could have been used and it was in fact being used on public road. That being the position, it was nota vehicle which was adapted exclusively for being used in an enclosed premises. Though Mr. It was, therefore, not a vehicle which could not have been used on public road. It could have been used and it was in fact being used on public road. That being the position, it was nota vehicle which was adapted exclusively for being used in an enclosed premises. Though Mr. Trivedi tried to contend that the entire area on which the bulldozer was plying was enclosed area, that submission is not borne out on record. On the other hand, the Panchnama of the scene of the accident as indicated hereinabove shows that the place of accident was a public road surrounded by fields, residential houses etc. Therefore, going by the definition of the expression motor Vehicle and keeping in mind the evidence on record, the submission that bulldozer cannot be said to be a motor vehicle must be said to have been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. ( 2 ) COMING to the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by Mr. Trivedi, it is firstly required to be noticed that the question whether a bulldozer is motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2 ( 18) of the Motor vehicles Act was never in focus before the Supreme court. The matter before the Supreme court pertained to three Civil Appeals, two of which, arose from Orissa and one from Mysore. In the appeal that arose from Mysore, the question pertained only to Dumpers. One of the two appeals which arose from Orissa was filed by bolani Ores Ltd. Before the Trial Court in the matter of Bolani Ores Ltd, the contention was that as many as eight types of machinery enumerated in the case were not required to be registered under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and they were not liable to tax under the relevant taxation Act. Out of the those eight types of machinery, at serial No. 3, was the caterpillar bulldozers. At serial Nos. 1 and 2 were Shovels and Drill Master respectively. In that case, the trial Court granted the claim of Bolani Ores Ltd. only as regards Motor Graders which were shown at item No. 6 and rejected the claim with respect to all the remaining seven items including the bulldozer or the Caterpillar Bulldozer. At serial Nos. 1 and 2 were Shovels and Drill Master respectively. In that case, the trial Court granted the claim of Bolani Ores Ltd. only as regards Motor Graders which were shown at item No. 6 and rejected the claim with respect to all the remaining seven items including the bulldozer or the Caterpillar Bulldozer. When the matter went to the High Court, it appears from para - 2 of the report that the learned Advocate general who appeared for the State made certain concessions and on the basis of those concessions the High Court accordingly modified the order of the Trial Court in respect of item Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In other words, the High Court upon the concession made by the learned Advocate General held in favour of Bolani Ores Ltd. that alongwith some other item Caterpillar Bulldozers were not liable to registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and were also not liable to be taxed under the relevant Motor Vehicles taxation Act. So far as the Caterpillar Bull dozers were concerned, the matter in that case ended there and the Supreme Court was not at all concerned with the case of Bulldozers. ( 3 ) THE other appeal from Orissa was filed by orissa Mineral Development Co. Ltd. That company claimed similar exemption from registration and payment of taxes in respect of nine items of machinery and at item No. 6 in the list of its machinery was Caterpillar Bulldozers. In that case the Trial Court on evidence found that the machineries at items 4 to 9 (that would include caterpillar Bulldozer) were not adapted for regular use on roads and as is clear from Para 3 of the report that fact was admitted by the opposite party. The matter so far as the Caterpillar Bulldozers were concerned came to be finally decided upon admission at the Trial Court stage. That matter was perhaps not agitated even before the High Court and surely it was not agitated before the Supreme Court. ( 4 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove were concerned only with Dumpers, Rockers and tractors (tractairs ). That matter was perhaps not agitated even before the High Court and surely it was not agitated before the Supreme Court. ( 4 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove were concerned only with Dumpers, Rockers and tractors (tractairs ). Their Lordships were concerned with a question where Dupmers, Rockers and Tractors (tractairs) were liable for registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and were also liable to taxation under the relevant motor Vehicles Taxation Act. This fact is clear from the opening lines of the judgment wherein their Lordships stated:"these appeals raise a common question as to whether Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors are motor vehicles within the meaning of the relevant state Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts, and are accordingly taxable thereunder. "this fact is further borne out if we read the report of the judgment. In the report also Their lordships have examined the mechanism of dumpers and Rockers in Paragraphs 24,25 and tractors (tractairs) in Paragraph 26. Nowhere in the judgment Their Lordships have considered the mechanism of Bulldozers. That would also be indicative of the fact that Their Lordships were not required to consider whether Bulldozers are motor Vehicles within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2 (18) of the Motor vehicles Act. That Their Lordships were only conemed with the question about Dumpers, rockers and Tractors (tractairs) would again be clear if we read the opening lines of paragraph 24 of the report. Even in paragraph 15 of the report there is clear indication to the effect that Their lordships were concerned only with Dumpers, rockers and Tractors (tractairs ). Thus, firstly, before the Supreme Court Bulldozers were never in question. To put it differently, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were never required to decide whether the Bulldozer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not decided whether the Bulldozer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act. That apart even on the general principles which their Lordships have initiated while deciding the case of Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors (traclairs) from the standpoint of deciding whether they are liable to registration under Section 22 of the motor Vehicles Act and taxation under the relevant Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The principle that seems to have been enunciated is that if a machinery or a device or a vehicle could be plied or used on the road in a public place, it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2 (18) of the Act and would be liable to registration and taxation. If it is not capable of being plied on a road, it would not be liable to any registration or taxation. If it is adapted or suitable for being plied on a road which is not a public place it would though be liable to registration, it would not be liable to taxation. It is upon these principles that Their lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraph 38 of the report held that Dumpers and Rockers though registrable under the Motor Vehicles Act are not taxable under the Taxation Act as long as they are working solely within the premises of the respective owners and Tractors (Tractairs) are neither registrable nor taxable. The test as laid down by the Supreme Court is adaptability or the suitability for a vehicle or mechanism or a device to be plied as a vehicle on a road which within the meaning of the expression public place as deffined in Section 2 (24) of the Motor Vehicles Act is a public place. Even going by that concept as the evidence in the instant case shows the Bulldozer was being taken from the workshop to the kadana Dam site on a road which was a public road, it was being driven in a public place. It was, therefore, a motor vehicle which answered general concept of the expression as given in the earlier part of the definition of the expression motor Vehicles and do not attract the later exemption part. The submission of Mr. Trivedi based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by him, therefore, cannot be accepted. .