1. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the judgment dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 163A of the said Act and awarding him compensation.

2. According to the respondent no.1, he was working as an agricultural labourer and was engaged by the appellant for harvesting Soyabean on a thresher machine. On 08.11.2006 when he was engaged in said harvesting work on the thresher machine which was attached to a tractor belonging to the appellant, an accident took place resulting injuries to his right hand which was required to be amputed subsequently. According to the respondent no.1, he was entitled for grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 163 A of the said Act and hence initiated proceedings in that regard.

3. The appellant filed his Written Statement vide Ex. 17 and took the stand that the tractor in question had been purchased on 28.12.2006 from the respondent no.3. It was pleaded that the alleged accident was not an accident involving motor vehicle and hence the appellant was not liable to satisfy the claim. The respondent no.3 also filed its written statement stating that the tractor in question was owned by the appellant and it was in his possession since prior to the accident.

4. The parties led evidence before the Tribunal and by judgment dated 19.01.2011 the claim petition came to be allowed holding the present appellant and respondent no.2 to be liable jointly and severally to satisfy the claim. An amount of Rs. 2,78,600/- was held to be payable as the amount of compensation.

5. Shri M.P. Kariya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two-fold contentions. According to him the accident in which the respondent no.1 suffered injuries as his right hand was partly crushed in the thresher could not be termed to be a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the thresher was not a motor vehicle and hence no compensation could be granted under provisions of said Act for the accident. In that regard he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Kishore s/o Nandlal Gayre Vs. Shahid Shah and anr. 2011(2) M.P.LJ. 201. It was also submitted that the thresher was in a stationary position and hence it did not answer the definition of the expression “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the said Act. He then submitted that the spot panchanama on the basis of which the liability came to be fastened on the appellant had not been duly proved. According to him, it was necessary to have examined the person who had written the panchanama and contents of the panchanama were required to be proved independently. In that regard he placed reliance on judgment of the Division Bench in Gope Laxmichand Badlani Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi and others 2002(2) Maharashtra Law Journal 755 and Ushakiran Shridhar Shinde (smt.) & others Vs. Arunkumar Kisanlal Kalal & others 2001(4) Bom. C.R. 200. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation in proceedings under Section 163A of the said Act.

6. Smt N. Jog, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 supported the impugned judgment. She relied upon the provisions of Section 2(28) of the said Act and submitted that as the thresher was attached to the tractor and was mechanically propelled, it was a motor vehicle for purpose of said Act. She submitted that the thresher could not be used without the tractor and as the appellant was the owner of the tractor he was held liable along with respondent no.2 who had operated the same. In that regard she placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation And Others Vs. Santosh And Others (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 94 and judgment of the M. P. High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra and others 2010(1) TAC