“Reach Stacker” Used In Enclosed Custom-Bonded Inland Container Depot Is Not A "Motor Vehicle": Supreme Court
The Court held that custom-bonded Inland Container Depots are not 'public places' under MVA and specialized heavy machinery falls within exclusionary part of Section 2(28).
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a Reach Stacker, a heavy industrial machine used to lift and stack shipping containers, operating within an Inland Container Depot (ICD) is not a "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA). Consequently, claims for compensation arising from accidents involving such specialized equipment within enclosed, restricted-access industrial premises cannot be maintained before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) under Section 166 of the MVA.
The Bench set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court and restored the order of the MACT Saket Courts, Delhi, which had rejected the claim petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “…judgments that have been cited deal with road rollers, tractor trailers or motorised carts. Regarding road rollers, to our mind, there is an additional point to be made. The understanding of enclosed premises in the context of road rollers vis-à-vis reach stacker is different. In the former, while it does apply to enclosed premises, which may be a part of otherwise public road, for example, where repairs or construction is being undertaken but in the former, there is a designated area within which it can be used. Put it differently, the latter can be used only within the four walls of a confined space that is not accessible to public. Further, none of these vehicles come with the stipulation that for them to ply, the roads are generally specially reinforced to bear the weight. These vehicles cannot ply on roads; the Reach Stacker exceeds the permitted weight; is dismantled to be transported and lacks general safety features that are present in a motor vehicle otherwise permitted on roads”.
“…Since it is vehicle dedicated to a particular kind of work which takes place within duly notified areas, it would fall into the second half of the definition of ‘motor vehicles’, i.e. the exclusion. The way the exclusion functions does not require the characteristic of the motor vehicle to be absent but instead it recognises that despite having the characteristics of a motor vehicle, certain types of vehicles cannot be equated to those vehicles that are generally understood to be ‘motor vehicles’”, the Bench observed further.
Senior Advocate Pinky Anand appeared for the appellant and Advocate Yadav Narender Singh appeared for the respondent while Advocate Shatakshi Singh appeared as Amicus Curiae.
For the facts, a severe accident on September 5, 2013, at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, where a Reach Stacker ran over the claimant, Rishi Ranjan Mishra, resulting in 90% physical disability and the amputation of his right leg. The claimant sought ₹75 lakhs in compensation before the MACT. While the Tribunal rejected the claim holding that a Reach Stacker is a special machine operating in enclosed premises, the Delhi High Court had reversed this finding, classifying it as a motor vehicle.
Re-examining the statutory scheme, the Supreme Court analyzed two core questions: whether roads within an ICD constitute a "public place" under Section 2(34) of the MVA, and whether a Reach Stacker falls under the exclusionary clause of "motor vehicle" in Section 2(28).
Addressing the first question, the Court observed that ICD Tughlakabad is a custom-bonded area under Section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962, with regulated access, gates, and security checks. Holding that members of the general public have no right of entry as a matter of right, the Bench ruled that roads inside an ICD do not constitute a "public place" under Section 2(34).
On the classification of the Reach Stacker, the Court noted that the machine weighs over 71 metric tonnes unladen (and up to 102 metric tonnes laden), far exceeding the maximum permissible gross vehicle weight notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for road-plying vehicles.
Applying tests laid down in Bolani Ores, Goodyear India, and Ultratech Cement, the Bench concluded that the Reach Stacker is a special-type vehicle designed specifically for off-road container handling within enclosed premises, lacking standard road safety features and requiring dismantling to be transported outside.
The Bench clarified that while Reach Stackers are excluded from MVA liability in such enclosed areas, any accident caused within an ICD by a "regular" road-plying vehicle (such as a truck or car) would remain compensable under the MVA. Applying equitable principles, the Court further directed that any compensation amount already paid to the severely injured respondent shall not be subjected to recovery by the appellant.
Cause Title: Container Corporation of India Limited v. Rishi Ranjan Mishra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 763).
Appearances:
Appellant: Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate.
Respondent: Yadav Narender Singh, Advocate.