Motor Vehicles Act | 'Excavator' Falls Within Definition Of 'Motor Vehicle' U/S 2(28): Andhra Pradesh High Court

Section 2(28) enacts that a '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 twenty-five cubic centimeters.”

In this regard, Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar further explained,

“The above definition informs 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 engine capacity of not exceeding 25 cubic centimeters. In the case at hand, the excavator was not on any enclosed premises, and it was not a vehicle with engine less than 25 cubic centimeters or less. At the material point of time, it was not in any factory or closed premises. It was in a public place. It was also not on fixed rails. Therefore, it does not fall within the exclusionary clause of motor vehicle.”

Background

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging an order, dated 09.02.2012 (impugned order), passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty (Claims Tribunal), whereby, the owner of Excavator and National Insurance Company Limited (appellant) were jointly and severally ordered to pay compensation worth Rs. 4,00,000/- at 7.5%.

Initially, an excavator, driven in a rash and negligent manner, ran over the legs of one Uddal Kesharam Pache (the deceased), while he was sleeping by the roadside, thereby, causing his death. The parents and younger brother of the deceased (claimants) filed O.P. No.643 of 2010 under Sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 against the owner and the insurance company as the excavator was insured at the material time. Among the many contentions raised, the insurance company had claimed that the Claims Tribunal lacked requisite jurisdiction to try the case as the excavator was a miscellaneous and special type of vehicle and was a chain mounted vehicle, therefore, it did not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the 1988 Act.

Vide the impugned order, the Claims Tribunal held that excavator falls within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the 1988 Act. Additionally, it was held that death was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the excavator and awarded a compensation of 4,00,000/- at 7.5%. Aggrieved, the insurance company filed the present appeal.

It was the case of the appellant insurance company that apart from awarding excess compensation to the claimants, the Claims Tribunal had erred in holding that the excavator comes within the ambit of 'motor vehicle'. Contrary to this, the claimants argued that the excavator was rightfully held to be a 'motor vehicle' under the 1988 Act. However, it was submitted that the Claims Tribunal had failed to grant just compensation and subsequently urged for enhanced compensation.

Thus, the Court had to examine two issues- (i) whether an excavator is a motor vehicle within the definition of Section 2(28) of the 1988 Act and, (ii) whether just compensation was awarded to the claimants by the Claims Tribunal.

Findings

At the outset, the Single Judge relied on the case of Chairman, R.S.R.T.C. v. Santosh [(2013) 7 SCC 94], and examined the definition of a 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the 1988 Act, particularly the exclusionary principle, and held,

“... 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 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.”

Therefore, with respect to the issue of excavator coming within the definition of 'motor vehicle', the Court upheld the understanding of the Claims Tribunal and its jurisdiction to try the case.

With respect to the issue of compensation which the claimants were entitled to, the Court observed that the Claims Tribunal was constrained to award Rs. 4,00,000/- in compensation as that was the amount prayed for in the initial claim, even though, in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal, Rs. 5,90,000 lakhs was just compensation. Relying on Surekha v. Santosh [(2021) 16 SCC 467], the Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 5,90,000 lakhs at 7.5% interest per annum. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Details

Case Number- M.A.C.M.A.No.3169 of 2012

Date- 09.05.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order