M.F. Saldanha, J.--The grounds on which the Insurance Company has challenged the Tribunal's order are limited to the interesting question as to whether the vehicle, which in this case was an Escorts harvesting machine, can be construed as a motor vehicle within the definition of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and secondly, whether the incident can be said to have been taken place in a public place as defined under Section 2(34) of the Act. Admittedly, the vehicle which caused the injury was a crop harvester of the deceased, who was a practicing Advocate and who own the lands in question, had gone there to supervise some operations when the driver was careless in operating the machine and the deceased sustained severe injuries and was killed. The Tribunal after assessing the claim and the evidence awarded compensation quantified at Rs.6,25,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum but the challenge with regard to the quantum cannot be entertained in this appeal.

2. We confine the consideration to the two points that have been urged by the Appellant's learned Advocate Sri Sowri Raju who sought to contend from the definition of motor vehicle that the harvester could no