The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'motor vehicle' under section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the liability of the owner for negligence in road construction leading to a fatal accident.

1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law as to whether the concrete mixture machine can be called as “motor vehicle” within the meaning of section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter will be referred to as “Act” for convenience).

2. Appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed on 27/01/2014 by M.A.C.T. Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 896/2005, thereby directing the appellant, who is the owner of the concrete mixture machine to pay the compensation of Rs.6,27,000/- to the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the parents of deceased Harish, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the order till its realization.

3. Brief facts of the appeal, can be stated as follows:-

Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the parents and respondent no.3 is the brother of the deceased Harish. On 12/12/2004 at about 11:30 p.m., Harish was proceeding on his motorcycle Bajaj Boxer bearing no. MH-31-BJ-7206 from Sitabuldi to his house. Near the turning of Khamla Basti on Khamla Road, his motorcycle slipped on the road while taking turn because of the debris material like concrete, mud and other materials lying on the road, which was on account of excavating of the earth for the construction of the road. The said work was being carried out by the appellant, who was engaged by the respondent no.4, Nagpur Municipal Corporation as a Contractor. Deceased, on account of slipping from the motorcycle, fell down on the concrete mixture machine, which was kept on the road in a negligent manner, without any danger sign, or without any barricades or indicators. As a result of the accident, Harish sustained injuries to his head. Though he was taken to the Medical College and Hospital at Nagpur for treatment, there, he was declared as dead on admission. Respondent nos.1 and 2, therefore, had lost their son in his untimely death on account of negligent act on the part said construction company of keeping the concrete mixture machine as well as materials unattended lying on the road without any signal to show the presence of said machine at the spot and further to show that the work was in progress at the site.

4. Respondents-claimants, Therefore, preferred the petition under section 166 of the Act against the Appellant-construction company and also the respondent no.4 Nagpur Municipal Corporation for compensation. According to case of the claimants, deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was studying in Second Year, Civil Engineering Diploma Course at Local Polytechnic College and was also working as a part time with S.L. Jinturkar and Company and with R.S. Dadhe and Associates. He had bright future and prospects. However, on account of his untimely death, as they had lost their source of income and also suffered loss of his love and affection. Hence they claimed the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from appellant and respondent no.4, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

5. This petition came to be resisted by the appellant vide written statement at Exh.15, contending inter alia that petition itself was not maintainable as Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the same, considering that the concrete mixture machine cannot be called as a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Act. Further it was contended that the cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. The very fact that while taking right turn, he slipped from his motorcycle and dashed on the stationary concrete mixture machine, is sufficient to indicate that deceased himself was responsible, and hence liability on the part of appellant or respondent no.4 of paying compensation, does not arise. Further, it was submitted that the owner and the insurer of motorcycle which deceased was driving, being not joined in the instant case, on this count also, the petition was vitiated for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the respondents-claima