JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.--The grounds on which the Insurance Company has challenged the Tribunal's order are limited to the interesting question as to whether the vehicle, which in this case was an Escorts harvesting machine, can be construed as a motor vehicle within the definition of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and secondly, whether the incident can be said to have been taken place in a public place as defined under Section 2(34) of the Act. Admittedly, the vehicle which caused the injury was a crop harvester of the deceased, who was a practicing Advocate and who own the lands in question, had gone there to supervise some operations when the driver was careless in operating the machine and the deceased sustained severe injuries and was killed. The Tribunal after assessing the claim and the evidence awarded compensation quantified at Rs.6,25,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum but the challenge with regard to the quantum cannot be entertained in this appeal. 2. We confine the consideration to the two points that have been urged by the Appellant's learned Advocate Sri Sowri Raju who sought to contend from the definition of motor vehicle that the harvester could not be construed as a motor vehicle. Sections 2(28) and 2(34) are reproduced below: 2(28) "motor vehicle" or "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 trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters 2(34) "public place"means a road, street, way of other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. 3. 3. It will be seen that the definition of 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' is a very comprehensive one and the definition includes a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads and in our considered view, though the harvester is normally put into operation in agricultural fields it is a self propelled vehicle which is required to move not only around in the fields but from area to area and having regard to these facts, it would be impossible to uphold the technical challenge that the vehicle in question was not a motor vehicle. Also, with regard to the argument that the field is not a public place what we need to point out is that once the vehicle has been insured by the Insurance Company unless there is a clause in the policy limiting the liability to the use of the vehicle in certain place and certain circumstances, which we do not find in this policy, it would not be permissible to argue that merely because the injury takes place at a place other than the conventional road, that the liability of the Insurance Company is exonerated. We take cognizance of the fact that it would be dangerous to narrow down the liabilities unless this has been done in the contract of insurance and in this view of the matter, we see no ground on which the order of the Tribunal can be called into question on the basis of the contentions that are now been raised. Additionally, we are not willing to permit such a challenge principally because we find from the pleadings that these contentions were never taken up before the Tribunal and the Respondents did not have notice of the same. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid findings we see no ground for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal accordingly fails on merits and stands dismissed. No order as to costs.