Excavator Is A Motor Vehicle: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds MACT Award

The Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insurance company assailing the award of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty (Claims Tribunal).

The Single Bench of Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar said, “In the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly considered the facts and law and gave adequate reasons and correctly held that the excavator involved in this accident is a motor vehicle and therefore the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the case.”

Advocate S.A.V. Ratnam represented the Appellant-Insurance Company while Advocate G. Ram Mohan Reddy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A welding worker aged 22 years was sleeping by the side of the road, when an excavator driven by its driver rashly & negligently ran over his legs causing causing serious injuries. He was shifted to the Government Hospital, but he succumbed to injuries and died. His parents and younger brother filed a Petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying for compensation of Rs 4,00,000. The owner of the offending excavator was made the first respondent. The National Insurance Company Limited, which had issued an insurance policy, was made the second respondent.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs 5,90,000. However, as the claim was made only for Rs 4 lakh, it granted only Rs 4 lakh as compensation. On the question of whether the excavator was a motor vehicle or not, it discussed the contentions on both sides and held that it was a motor vehicle, and the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Bench explained that a motor vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. The definition has an exclusionary principle stating that vehicles running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises, and vehicles of less than four wheels fitted with an engine capacity of not exceeding 25 cubic cm.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the excavator was not on any enclosed premises, and it was not a vehicle with an engine of less than 25 cubic centimeters or less. It was further noticed that the excavator is mechanically propelled vehicle and at the material point of time it was adapted for use upon roads and, having a chassis, it moves because of an engine and fuel generating power internally.

“As to whether a particular vehicle can be defined as a motor vehicle in terms of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is to be determined on the facts of each case taking into consideration the use of the vehicle and its suitability for being used upon the road. Once it is found to be suitable for being used on the road, it is immaterial whether it runs on the public road or private road, for the reason, that the actual user of particular purpose is no criterion to decide the name. The word “only” used in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly shows that the exemption is confined only to those kinds of vehicles which are exclusively being used in a factory or in any closed premises. Thus, a vehicle which is not adapted for use upon the road is only to be excluded”, the Bench observed.

The Bench referred to the judgment in Bose Abraham v. State of Kerala (2001) , where the question came up for consideration in the context of Kerala Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1994. It was held therein that excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under that Act.

On the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Bench referred to the judgment in Surekha v. Santosh (2021) wherein it has been held that even in such cases the claimants’ argument for just compensation shall be considered and the Courts are empowered to grant what they find to be just compensation.

Thus, modifying the compensation from Rs 4 lakh to Rs 5,90,000 with interest and dismissing the Appeal, the Bench ordered, “However, on this additional amount of Rs.1,90,000/- the claimants shall remit requisite court fee before the Claims Tribunal.”

Cause Title: The National Insurance Company Limited, Anantapur v. Keshoram Pache @ Keshevarav Somya Tikapache @ Pachekesharam (Case No: M.A.C.M.A.No.3169 of 2012)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate S.A.V.Ratnam

Respondent: Advocates G. Ram Mohan Reddy, G.V.S. Mehar Kumar,

Click here to read/download Judgment