Registered Road Rollers, Excavators, Cranes Are 'Motor Vehicle' If Normal Road Use Permitted: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that earth moving machines such as the road rollers, excavators, cranes etc. are 'Motor Vehicle' under the Act of 1988 if they are duly registered with the Transport Department and have permission for 'normal road use'.

The Court was considering an Appeal preferred at the instance of the Insurance Company, challenging the award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held, "....this Court deems it appropriate to hold that if the excavator is not registered, and is not capable of normal road use, it does not fall under the Act, 1988. But, if is registered, insured, and permitted to move on public roads even occasionally, then it would be treated as a motor vehicle under the Act, 1988. Precisely, a vehicle adapted for use on road and duly registered is a motor vehicle. Machines like road rollers, excavators, or cranes, when registered, come within the purview of Act, 1988, irrespective of premises of accident either restricted or open."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Devyani Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rahul Kumar Tripathi.

Facts of the Case

One late night in 2021 when the deceased was working in mine, the driver/operator of Tata Hitachi Excavator 650 Poclain in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly dashed the deceased, on account of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment. The matter was reported to the Police and an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 

In the meantime, the Claimants preferred a Claim Petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal which was partly allowed and a compensation of Rs.13,91,080/- was awarded.

Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim as offending vehicle i.e. excavator (poclain) does not fall within the ambit of Act,1988.

It was submitted that the offending vehicle involved in the case does not come within the meaning of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of Act, 1988, being special type vehicle meant to use in the restricted premises. It was neither transport nor strictly non-transport vehicle made exclusively to carry goods, but instead it was an earth moving vehicle, having a specified description as per Section 10(2) GQ of the Act, 1988. 

It was submitted that the concerned excavator was not equipped to travel on roads as it was fitted with steel plates to efficiently operate exclusively within the designated enclosed area of mine premises which was a prohibited area and not open to the public without permission.  She further argued that the insurance policy being exclusive vehicle insurance under contractor's plant cannot be categorized as a 'motor vehicle policy' under the law.

Reasoning By Court 

The Court at the outset looked into the definition of "motor vehicle" as per the Act and referred to Supreme Court's decision in Bose Abraham Vs. State of Kerala, 2001.

Noting that a chain-mounted excavator runs on steel/iron tracks primarily designed for off-road construction-site work, however, the same can be used on road as well, the Court held that if the excavator is not registered, and is not capable of normal road use, it does not fall under the Act, 1988, however, the same is not the case otherwise.

"Once it is established that the excavator in question is duly registered with the Transport Department and bears a registration number under the Act, 1988, it satisfies the definition of a “motor vehicle” as contained in Section 2(28) of the Act. The mere fact that the vehicle is chain mounted or primarily used for construction work, does not take it outside the purview of the statute. Consequently, such an excavator, being a registered motor vehicle, is governed by the provisions of the Act, 1988, and any claim arising out of its use or operation would squarely fall within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act", the Court held.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: New India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Sukraniya and Others (2025:MPHC-JBP:56395)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Devyani Singh

Respondent- Advocate Rahul Kumar Tripathi, Advocate Ankit Shrivastav

Click here to read/ download Order