Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 681 (PNJ)

Chander Kanta Verma v. Arun Kumar Nepali

2013-05-21

K.KANNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT : K. Kannan, J. The appeal comes out of an order of dismissal of a claim petition made under the Motor Vehicles Act for death of a person by the use of a mechanical contrivance which the petitioner claimed was a motor vehicle. The contention of the respondents was that the machine was not a motor vehicle under the Act and the insurance company joined issue by pointing out that even the policy of insurance was not as a motor vehicle but a mere machinery among other machineries which were owned by the contractor. The Tribunal accepted this contention and dismissed the petition. The vehicle, which is involved and in respect of which an insurance was also said to have been taken was a wheeler loader. The Tribunal found it to be not a motor vehicle. In my view, the view expressed by the Tribunal was on inadequate evidence and by a wrong inference. A motor vehicle is defined u/s 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is reproduced as under:- 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 a 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 centimeter. 2. In every case where the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal is invoked, all that is necessary is that in terms of Section 165, there should have been an accident involving the death or bodily injury arising out of "use of motor vehicle". The qualification of a vehicle ought not to be seen only as whether the Regional Transport Officer has registered the vehicle for being plied in the public place or not. The qualification of a vehicle ought not to be seen only as whether the Regional Transport Officer has registered the vehicle for being plied in the public place or not. That registration of vehicle by the DTO office may be conclusive for finding a jurisdiction but if ever there is an issue whether a particular vehicle is a motor vehicle, the Tribunal has to be only guided by what is the particular vehicle that was involved and whether there is evidence that (i) it was a mechanically propelled vehicle; (ii) adapted for use upon roads. A mechanical propulsion could be either by a transmission from an external or internal source. The vehicle could be either a chassis to which a body has not been attached or a body attached. A trailer on a stand alone basis may not be a motor vehicle but if it is attached to the vehicle, it shall become a part of the motor vehicle. The Section also contains what types of vehicles will qualify for the definition as such motor vehicles. They include (i) vehicle running upon fixed wheels or (ii) a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or (iii) vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeter. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants points out to me the brochure relating to the particular vehicle which was involved, which according to him, would prove that it is a motor vehicle and it is capable of being put on road and driven at a speed of 30 kms per hour. There have been decisions of various Courts that have examined what motor vehicles are which do not answer the conventional sense of a motor vehicle in the manner we understood them. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) Vs. Malkiat Singh and Others, (1988) ACJ 553 that a Combine Harvester is a motor vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) Vs. Malkiat Singh and Others, (1988) ACJ 553 that a Combine Harvester is a motor vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. A bench of Madras High Court has held that mechanically propelled crane driven on a public road is still a motor vehicle under the Act of 1939 and the fact that the vehicle was not registered and it was not adapted to carry passengers were immaterial in the decision in Poomani Vs. Tuticorin Thermal Power Project, AIR 1990 Mad 372 The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that JCB machine is a motor vehicle u/s 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and the fact that the vehicle is not required to be registered by the RTA as a motor vehicle and non-issue of registration number were irrelevant in the decision in The The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balu Banjara and Others, (2008) ILR (MP) 117 A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that a pay loader was covered under the definition of a motor vehicle u/s 2(28) in Vikram Inspat (a Vikram Ispat (A Unit of Grasim Industries Ltd.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2003 Bom 498 . A Bench of this Court has also held that a jugar run on a public place without getting it registered and obtaining a necessary licence would still qualify for the definition of a motor vehicle in the decision in Sunil Suman Kaushik Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1997) 115 PLR 224 . The Court was issuing also directions to take effective steps to the authorities to prevent the plying of such jugars on the public road but it did not deter the Court from finding that it was still a motor vehicle which if involved resulting in death or injuries would give jurisdiction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the case. 4. I have, therefore, under the circumstances no difficulty in accepting the argument made on behalf of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the petition by finding that the vehicle involved in the accident was not a motor vehicle and that it had no jurisdiction to decide the cases. 4. I have, therefore, under the circumstances no difficulty in accepting the argument made on behalf of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the petition by finding that the vehicle involved in the accident was not a motor vehicle and that it had no jurisdiction to decide the cases. I set aside the finding and hold that the vehicle involved was a motor vehicle and that the claim petition was correctly made. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company has a contention to make that the policy of insurance did not insure the particular equipment which was involved in the accident. The nature of insurance that was taken and the nature of evidence that was required to be taken u/s 147 under the compulsory insurance provision for covering risk of third party will be examined by the Tribunal to ascertain whether the liability could be fastened or not. I keep the issue open for an adjudication upon appropriate evidence to be laid by both parties. The award of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal may consider that the case is related to the accident of the year 1997 and may treat the case one of the cases targeted for quick disposal. For appearance of parties before the Tribunal on 15.07.2013.