JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 31st July, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.14-S/2 of 2008, titled Kamal Sharma vs. Padam Chand Rohal and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The claimant, the owner and the driver have not questioned impugned award on any count, therefore, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has challenged the impugned award by the medium of instant appeal, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26th January, 2007, at about 5.30 p.m., the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) was inside his cattle shed at Ded Gharat near Kandaghat. A road was being constructed on the upper side of the cattle shed and the machinery was in operation for the purpose. All of a sudden, a big boulder came from the upper side, as a result of which the right leg of the claimant got injured. The boulder came down because of the JCB being used for the construction of the Road. The JCB, at the relevant time, was being driven by driver namely Vijay Kumar. The claimant was shifted to the hospital. FIR bearing No.32/2007 was registered at Police Station Kandaghat under Sections 337, 338 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20.00 lacs as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 4. Respondents resisted the claim petition by filing replies. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be settled: “1. Whether the injuries were suffered by the petitioner on account of fall of a stone which was on account of operation of JCB bearing engine No.200850022 owned by the respondent N.1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, as to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the injuries were suffered by the petitioner on account of fall of a stone which was on account of operation of JCB bearing engine No.200850022 owned by the respondent N.1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, as to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved as to whether the respondent No.3 shall be responsible to make payment of amount if so as to what extent, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence of JCB at time of the accident as alleged? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 6. Parties led their evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his claim, examined PW-1 Dr. Ashish Sharma, PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singla, PW-4 Geeta Ram, PW-5 Devender Kumar, PW- 6 Krishan Kumar and also stepped himself into the witness box as PW-3. 7. On the other hand, the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. JCB stepped into the witness box as RW-1. The insurer has not led any evidence. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, has held that the driver, namely, Vijay Kumar, on the fateful day, had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused the injuries and since the offending vehicle was duly insured, saddled the insurer with the liability. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has challenged the impugned award by the medium of the instant appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. My issue-wise findings are as under: Issue No.1: 11. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence and the pleadings of the parties, has categorically held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the JCB driver. A perusal of the record also discloses that qua the accident, FIR bearing No.32, dated 21.2.2007, Ext.PW-6/A, was registered at Police Station, Kandaghat. After investigation, challan was filed before the competent court of law against the driver. Even otherwise, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No.3 and 4: 12. Before issue No.2 is taken up, I deem it proper to take up issues No.3 and 4. The onus to prove the said issues was on the insurer. Even otherwise, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issues No.3 and 4: 12. Before issue No.2 is taken up, I deem it proper to take up issues No.3 and 4. The onus to prove the said issues was on the insurer. A perusal of the record shows that the insurer has not led any evidence to prove the said issue. 13. However, during the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that the JCB machine is not a motor vehicle in the eyes of law. The argument though attractive is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 14. Section 2 (28) of the Act defines a motor vehicle and while going through the said definition, it appears that JCB machine is a motor vehicle. It is apt to reproduce Section 2 (28) of the Act herein. “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 4 [twenty-five cubic centimetres];” 15. It is also profitable to reproduce the definition of JCB given in Oxford dictionary at page 695. “A powerful motor vehicle with a long arm for digging and moving earth.” 16. The above quoted definition does disclose that the JCB is a powerful motor vehicle with a long arm for digging earth. In terms of the said definition, the JCB is a motor vehicle. 17. The same question arose before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case titled New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Indore versus Balu Banjara and others reported in 2008 (2) MPHT 252 . It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 8 of the said judgment herein. “8. …… ……In the present case the JCB machine is running on the roads and is being used for construction of the roads. Ltd. Indore versus Balu Banjara and others reported in 2008 (2) MPHT 252 . It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 8 of the said judgment herein. “8. …… ……In the present case the JCB machine is running on the roads and is being used for construction of the roads. Only because it is not being registered by the Regional Transport Authority as motor vehicle and no registration number is being given, it cannot be said that the JCB was not a motor under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the JCB machine is motor for the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act.” 18. The apex Court in Bose Abraham versus State of Kerala and another reported in AIR 2001 SC 835 has discussed Section 2 (28) of the Act and held that the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the said judgment herein. “7. We hold that the excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under that Act. The High Court has noticed the admission of the appellants that the excavators and road rollers are suitable for use on roads. However, the contention put forth now is that they are intended for use in the enclosed premises. Merely because a motor vehicle is put to a specific use such as being confined to an enclosed premises, will not render the same to be a different kind of vehicle. Hence, in our view, the High Court has correctly decided the matter and the impugned order does not call for any interference by us. However, the question whether any motor vehicle has entered into a local area to attract tax under the Entry Tax Act or any concession given under the local Sales Tax Act will have to be dealt with in the course of assessment arising under the Entry Tax Act”. 19. The apex Court in another judgment rendered in case titled Nagashetty versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3356 , held that the trailer attached with the tractor is a motor vehicle. 20. The apex Court in another judgment in case M/s Natwar Parikh and Co. 19. The apex Court in another judgment rendered in case titled Nagashetty versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3356 , held that the trailer attached with the tractor is a motor vehicle. 20. The apex Court in another judgment in case M/s Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. versus State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 3428 discussed Sections 2 (28), 2 (14) and 2 (47) of the Act and held that tractor-trailer is a transport vehicle under Section 2 (47) of the Act. It is apposite to reproduce para 24 of the said judgment herein. “24. Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although, a "trailer" is separately defined under Sec. 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under Sec. 2(28). Similarly, the word "tractor" is defined in Sec. 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles, etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under Sec. 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under Sec. 2(14), and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Sec. 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Sec. 2(14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Sec. 2(47) of the M.V. Act, 1988.” 21. The Gujarat High Court in case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baby Anjali & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 Gujarat 12, has discussed the definition in terms of Sections 2 (18) and 2 (19) of the Act and held that the trailer attached to the tractor falls within the definition of motor Vehicle. 22. The question arose before the Gujarat High Court in case titled State of Gujarat versus Danabhai Bhulabhai and Ors., reported in 1991 (2) G.L.H. 404 , whether the bulldozer is a motor vehicle and it was held that the same is a motor vehicle. It is appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of para 11 of the said judgment herein. “11. ………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.” 23. In case Kusum and others versus Kamal Kumar Soni and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1613 , the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the power-tiller is a motor vehicle. 24. The apex Court in a latest judgment in case titled Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. versus Smt. Santosh & Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2791 has discussed the object of the Motor Vehicles Act and also Sections 2 (28) and 2(44). It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 22 of the said judgment herein. “22. The Tractor is a machine run by diesel or petrol. It is a self-propelled vehicle for hauling other vehicles. It is used for different purposes. It is also used for agricultural purposes, along with other implements; such as harrows, ploughs, tillers, blade-terracers, seed- drills etc. “22. The Tractor is a machine run by diesel or petrol. It is a self-propelled vehicle for hauling other vehicles. It is used for different purposes. It is also used for agricultural purposes, along with other implements; such as harrows, ploughs, tillers, blade-terracers, seed- drills etc. It is a self-propelled vehicle capable of pulling alone as defined under the definition of Motor Vehicles. It does not fall within any of the exclusions as defined under the Act. Thus, it is a Motor Vehicle in terms of the definition under Section 2(28) of the Act, which definition has been adopted by the Act. So, even without referring to the definition of the Tractor, if the definition of the Motor Vehicle as given under the Act is strictly construed, even then the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. The Tractor is not only used for agricultural purposes but is also used for other purposes as stated above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tractor in its popular meaning is only used for agricultural purposes and, thus, is not a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. The Tractor is a Motor Vehicle is also proved by this definition under Section 2(44) of the Act. Different types of Motor Vehicles have been defined under the provisions of the Act, and the Tractor is one of them. Thus, considering the question from any angle, the Tractor is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act.” 25. Viewed thus, it is held that the JCB is a motor vehicle. 26. It is admitted fact that the offending vehicle was insured. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in contravention to the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy or that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence in which the insurer has miserably failed. 27. The owner of the offending vehicle has categorically stated in his statement while appearing as RW-1 that the driver Vijay Kumar was having a valid and effective driving licence and was competent to drive the vehicle in question. The driving licence of the driver was placed on record as Ext.R-3, which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. 28. The driving licence of the driver was placed on record as Ext.R-3, which does disclose that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. 28. Having said so, no fault can be found with the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues and accordingly the same are upheld. Issue No.3: 29. The claimant has examined Dr. Anish Sharma as PW-1 who has stated that he was the member of the Board constituted for assessing the disability suffered by the claimant. He further stated that the claimant had suffered 15% disability, which was permanent in nature, due to which the claimant might be facing problem in driving a heavy vehicle. The disability certificate has been proved on record as Ext.PW-1/A. The claimant has also examined PW-2 Dr. R.P. Singla who had stated that he operated upon the leg of the claimant and fixed a plate inside it. 30. The claimant specifically pleaded to be working as professional driver. To prove this factum, the claimant examined PW-5 Devinder who specifically stated that the claimant had been working as driver for the last 20-30 years with different owners and in the year 2007, the claimant was working as driver with vehicle No.HP-09-0321 owned by him. PW-5 Devinder further stated that the salary of the claimant was Rs.3,500/- per month and the claimant was also getting Rs.100/- per say as daily allowance. The driving licence of the claimant has been proved on record as PW-3/B which does disclose that the claimant was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. 31. After taking into account the entire evidence, as discussed hereinabove, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant to be Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal has further held, and rightly so, that, no doubt, the claimant suffered only 15% permanent disability, but due to the loss of his profession of driver from which he was earning his two ends bread, the claimant has to be compensated for at least 50% of his income. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of income to the claimant to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month. 32. Coming to the multiplier, the age of the claimant, at the time of accident, was 55 years. The Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the injured, has rightly applied the multiplier of 11. 33. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of income to the claimant to the tune of Rs.2500/- per month. 32. Coming to the multiplier, the age of the claimant, at the time of accident, was 55 years. The Tribunal, keeping in view the age of the injured, has rightly applied the multiplier of 11. 33. In addition to above, the Tribunal has again rightly awarded the compensation under the heads ‘medical expenses’, ‘pain and suffering’ and ‘comforts and longevity of life’. 34. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.2 are liable to be upheld and the same are upheld accordingly. 35. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount, alongwith interest accrued thereon, to the claimant forthwith.