JUDGMENT : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. The insured/owner of the offending construction equipment vehicle (for short, 'crane'), aggrieved by the finding fastening liability to pay compensation and exonerating the insurer from paying compensation, by common judgment and award date 3-7-2012 in MVC Nos. 8907, 8908 and 8207 of 2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (for short, 'MACT') has presented these appeals. 2. Facts not in dispute are: the offending 'crane' registered as a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act') read with Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'Rules') with certificate of registration 'CH 04 L 7891' driven in a rash and negligent manner on 25-10-2010 at about 6.30 p.m. on Kanakapura Main Road near Yadamadu Village dashed against a Maruthi Van bearing certificate of registration No. KA 41 M 5624, due to which two occupants of the Maruthi Van suffered injuries, while another succumbed to grievous injuries, causing damages to the Maruthi Van; injured filed claim petitions invoking Section 166 of the MV Act, registered as MVC Nos. 8907 and 8908 of 2010. while legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition registered as MVC No. 8207 of 2010 before the MACT; the owner/insured of tire offending 'crane' was arraigned as respondent 2, while the insurer as respondent 1, when served with notice, entered appearance, resisted the claim by filing statement of objections; insurer-respondent 1 advanced the plea that it was not liable to pay compensation since the vehicle was not insured under the MV Act, while the vehicle was insured as 'plant and machinery', not covering third party claims arising out of the motor vehicle accident in a public road; that the insured having understood the terms and conditions of Contractor's Plant and Machinery' floater policy (for short, 'CPM policy') made payment towards premium for damages of the vehicle as also the premium towards third party liability, who suffered injuries at the site of construction. 3. Having regard to pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed issues in each of the claim petitions, clubbed them together, recorded common evidence whence, claimants were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 3, while the doctor as P.W. 4 and marked 46 documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 46 and for respondents the officer of the insurer was examined as R.W. 1 and marked a copy of the policy' of insurance as Ex. 1 to 3, while the doctor as P.W. 4 and marked 46 documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 46 and for respondents the officer of the insurer was examined as R.W. 1 and marked a copy of the policy' of insurance as Ex. R. 1. The MACT returned finding on issue 1 in the affirmative attributing actionable negligence to the driver of offending 'crane'; partly in affirmative on issue 2 entitling the claimants to compensation; and answered issue 3 fastening liability to pay compensation on the insured, by the judgment and award impugned. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the evidence both oral and documentary and examined the judgment and award. The question for decision making is : "Whether in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the MACT was justified in fastening the liability on the insured/owner to pay the compensation while exonerating the insurer?" 5. The plea of the appellant as aired by its learned Counsel is that the 'crane' is attached to the motor vehicle which confirms to the definition of 'Heavy goods vehicle' under Section 2(16) of the MV Act, and the said vehicle with attachment falls within the definition 'construction equipment vehicle' under Rule 2(ca) of the Rules, for which the insurer issued a valid and effective policy of insurance Ex. R. 1-'CPM policy', receiving an additional premium of Rs. 2,500/- to cover third party risk excluding contractual risk, in respect of claims both fatal and non-fatal, of persons, hence the MACT was not justified in absolving the insurer from the liability to pay the compensation. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the insurer seeks to sustain the judgment and award impugned as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. 7. The 'CPM Policy'-Ex. R. 1 admitly covers the risk of 64 cranes belonging to the owner/insured and against column Sl. No. 1 relating to location of the risk, it is stated thus : "64 cranes on different sites as per list provided by the insured Anywhere In India, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400026". In the column at Sl. No. 7, for description of items, it is mentioned as "TRX 2319" and the identification number as 'CH 04 L 7891'. The period of insurance is from 11-6-2010 to midnight of 10-6-2011. The 'CPM' policy also mentions collection of premium of Rs. 2,500/- towards Rs. In the column at Sl. No. 7, for description of items, it is mentioned as "TRX 2319" and the identification number as 'CH 04 L 7891'. The period of insurance is from 11-6-2010 to midnight of 10-6-2011. The 'CPM' policy also mentions collection of premium of Rs. 2,500/- towards Rs. 10,00,000/- the sum insured against third party liability covers and specifically states that the insurance under the policy is extended to cover the risk of (as per form attached) and makes reference to third party liability cover. In addition, the policy states that it is subject to warranties and clauses (as per form attached) with the nomenclature "CPM third party liability". 8. The enclosure to the 'CPM policy' Ex. R. 1 is a standard policy form of CPM Insurance policy, providing for exceptions one of which, at clause 'h', reads thus : "Loss or damage whilst in transit, from one location to another location. (Public: Liability will not be payable while Contractors Plant and Machineries are on public roads." Sub-clause (a) of Clause 3 reads thus : "This policy and the attached schedules shall be read together as one contract and any words and expressions to which specific meanings have been attached in any part of this policy or of the attached schedules shall bear the same meaning wherever they may appear." As regards third party liability, it reads thus : "3. Third Party Liability - Attached to and forming part of the Policy No....... In consideration of the payment of the additional premium of Rs. it is hereby agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated in this policy, the Company will indemnify the insured : (a) against legal liability for the accidental loss or damage caused to the property of other persons. (b) against legal liability (liability under contract excepted) for fatal or non-fatal injury to any persons other than the insured or his own employees or employee of the owner of the works/site/premises/location or employees of the other firms/connected with any other work site/premises/location or members of the family of the insured or any of the aforesaid." (emphasis supplied) 9. The insurer examined one of its officer as R.W. 1, who introduced in evidence Ex. The insurer examined one of its officer as R.W. 1, who introduced in evidence Ex. R. 1, the 'CPM policy' with attachments and asserted that the policy covered risk of third party confined to work area/place anywhere in the country while the vehicle was not authorised to ply on public road. In the cross examination, the witness denied the suggestion that the said policy covers the risk of third parties at any place/location. 10. The MACT having regard to the testimony of R.W.1, that Ex. R. 1-'CPM policy' covered risk of damages to machinery at work site and not third party risk arising out of accident on public road and applying clause (h) supra concluded that the indemnity under the said policy was not available to the insured, hence fastened liability to pay compensation and sequentially absolved the insurer of the liability. 11. The MACT apparently did not observe Clause 3 relating to third party liability extracted supra containing the non obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated in the policy" which made ineffective clause (h) supra that the indemnity would not be available if the vehicle is plying on a public street, hence the insured/owner was entitled to the indemnity against third party liability. Again in view of sub-clause (b) of Clause 3, the insurer indemnified the insured against legal liability for fatal and non-fatal injury to any persons other than the insured or his own employees, while liability under contract was excepted. 12. Thus, the term in the contract of indemnity Ex. R. 1 against legal liability of third party was very much available, since, agreed to between the insurer and insured, despite the condition (h) to the contrary in the policy of insurance when the vehicle is plying on a public street or any location. In the instant case, the accident occurred on a public street involving the 'crane' in question causing damages to the Maruti Van and injuries to its occupants, while one of the occupant succumbed to grievous injuries and therefore, it is too far-fetch for the Insurance Company to contend that Ex. R. 1 did not cover the risk of third party claims. The findings of the MACT, being perverse calls for interference. 13. A faint effort was made by the learned Counsel for Insurance Company to contend that the 'crane' is not a motor vehicle. R. 1 did not cover the risk of third party claims. The findings of the MACT, being perverse calls for interference. 13. A faint effort was made by the learned Counsel for Insurance Company to contend that the 'crane' is not a motor vehicle. The submission is noticed only to be rejected in the light of definition of the term 'construction equipment vehicle' under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which reads thus : "2. (ca) "Construction equipment vehicle" means rubber tyred, (including pneumatic tyred), rubber padded or steel drum wheel mounted, self-propelled, excavator, loader, backhoe, compactor roller, dumper, motor grader, mobile crane, dozer, fork lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof designed for off-highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking, irrigation and general construction but modified and manufactured with "on or off" or "on and off" highway capabilities. Explanation.—A construction equipment vehicle shall be a non-transport vehicle the driving on the road of which is incidental to the main off-highway fund ion and for a short duration at a speed not exceeding 50 kms. per hour, but such vehicle does not include other purely off-highway construction equipment vehicle designed and adopted for use in an enclosed premises, factory or mine other than road network, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power." 14. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the insurer that the policy of insurance Ex. R. 1 is a non-statutory policy and is contractual limiting the liability to Rs. 10,00,000/- as sum insured, for which, premium of Rs. 2,500/- was collected towards legal liability against claims put forth by third parties. In support of the plea, learned Counsel places reliance upon 'General Regulations' in the 'All India Tariff on Contractor's Plant and Machinery Insurance' (for short, 'tariff'), more appropriately, to Regulation 3 relating to standard policy form in respect of 'CPM Policy'. 15. Learned Counsel hastens to add that insured though had the option to select either the Motor/non-motor vehicle policy under the Motor Tariff or CPM policy in the Engineering Department nevertheless having selected the CPM policy, Ex. 15. Learned Counsel hastens to add that insured though had the option to select either the Motor/non-motor vehicle policy under the Motor Tariff or CPM policy in the Engineering Department nevertheless having selected the CPM policy, Ex. R. 1 cannot be construed as an Act policy falling under Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of MV Act, 1988 to cover the limits of liability against the death or bodily injury to any passenger of public service vehicle caused by or arising out of use of vehicle in public places. 16. Per contra, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as claimants submit that the 'scope' under Regulation 3 of the Tariff states that the insurance for Contractor's Plant and Machinery equipment, includes those governed by the 'MV Act' or rateable under motor tariff when engaged for work at any specific location in India subject to general Regulation. It is submitted that Ex. R. 1 is a comprehensive policy including third party liability as envisaged under Section 147(1) of the Act, hence, includes the claims put forth by the claimants in their respective claim petitions. 17. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant-insured that premium of Rs. 2,500/- (0.25% of Rs. 10 lakhs) received by the Insurance Company towards third party liability, in Exhibit R. 1, includes premium under the Motor Tariff, against legal liability for fatal or non-fatal injuries to any person other than the insured or his employees. 18. Useful to extract Regulation 3 of the tariff which reads thus : "3. Scope.-The cover shall be as per the standard policy form in respect of Contractor's Plant and Machinery Insurance. The Insurance of all types of Contractor's Plant Machinery and Equipments (including those governed by the Motor Vehicles Act or rateable under Motor Tariff) engaged for work at any specified location in India, shall be subject to these General Regulations. In respect of machinery/equipments, whether registered with RTO or not, but engaged at the Project site, the insured, has an option either to select the Motor/Non-motor Policy under Motor Tariff or CPM policy in the Engineering Department. In case of doubt as to the applicability of Rate Schedule and these General Regulations, the matte should be referred to the Tariff Advisory Committee through Head Office of the Insurers." 19. In case of doubt as to the applicability of Rate Schedule and these General Regulations, the matte should be referred to the Tariff Advisory Committee through Head Office of the Insurers." 19. There is no more dispute that the Tariff Advisory Committee prepared the tariff for motor vehicles insurance as also tariff for Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance. There is also no dispute that the scope under general regulations for CPM tariff specifically states that insurance of all types of Contractors Plant and Machinery and Equipments, including, those governed by the 'MV Act', are relatable under the Motor Tariff when engaged for specific work in specified location in India, subject to general regulations. In addition, 'scope' sets out that in respect of machinery/equipments, whether registered with the RTO or not, engaged at the project site, the Insured has an option to select either the motor/non-motor policy under the Motor Tariff or CPM Policy in the Engineering Department. 20. Despite the distinction between the two tariffs, namely, motor vehicles and 'CPM' as palpable from the scope under general regulations of the Insurance tariff, nevertheless if the machinery equipment is engaged at a location the CPM policy includes those governed by 'MV Act', or rateable under Motor Tariff, subject to general regulations. 21. The fact that the mobile crane in question is attached to a heavy goods vehicle, registered as a motor vehicle under the 'MV Act', with Certificate of Registration bearing No. CH 04 L 7891 not falling within the exclusion of a motor vehicle or vehicle under Section 2(28) of the 'MV Act', being a construction equipment vehicle fall within the definition of the said term under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with Section 2(16) of the 'MV Act' defining 'heavy goods vehicle'. In other words, a mobile crane attached to a heavy goods vehicle is both a construction equipment vehicle as well as heavy goods vehicle for the purpose of the 'MV Act' and Rules framed thereunder. 22. According to R.W. 1-Officer of the Insurance Company, the premium of Rs. 2,500/- is in respect of risks of third parties, only when the machinery is engaged in a particular location. The question is whether it relates to risks of third parties within a location or without. 22. According to R.W. 1-Officer of the Insurance Company, the premium of Rs. 2,500/- is in respect of risks of third parties, only when the machinery is engaged in a particular location. The question is whether it relates to risks of third parties within a location or without. Although the CPM Policy is in respect of Contractors Plant, Machinery and Equipments engaged in a location covers the risks of the insured subject to certain terms and conditions as extracted in Exhibit R. 1 Policy of Insurance, nevertheless, if regard is had to the indemnity to the insured against legal liability for fatal and non-fatal injuries to third party based upon the non obstante clause, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated in the policy", the evidence of R.W.1-the officer of the Insurer is unacceptable. In the clause relating to indemnity against legal liability, the words in brackets reads 'liability under the contract excepted', while the dictionary meaning of the word 'excepted' is 'other than' and 'not included', hence, premium of Rs. 2,500/- for Rs. 10 lakhs sum insured as required by Clause 17 of the CPM Tariff is an exception to the liability under the contract, is the agreement between the insurer and the insured. 23. The Insurer having received premium of Rs. 2,500/- to cover the legal liability of third party i.e., of any person in fatal or non-fatal injury, the Insurer is bound to satisfy the claims for compensation. 24. The further submission of learned Counsel for the Insurer that a plea is advanced before the MACT in the written statement that the policy of insurance is issued based upon CPM Tariff and not Motor Tariff, hence not liable to make good the compensation and indemnify the insured against the claims put forth by claimants pales into insignificance, in the light of the aforesaid observations. 25. In the result, appeals of the insured/owner of the 'crane' are allowed in part. The finding in the judgment and award, impugned, fastening liability on the appellant to pay compensation is set aside and liability is fastened on the Insurer and in all other respects, remains unaltered. 26. The amount in deposit in each of the appeals is directed to be refunded to the appellant.