The court affirmed that a Poklen construction vehicle qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring liability is upheld for third-party claims.

ORDER :

1. This is an appeal by the insurance company against the award dated 07.05.2018 passed by the 6^th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.107 of 2016, in which compensation of Rs.7,10,400/- has been granted in favour of the claimants fastening liability upon the appellant insurance company and owner-Respondent No.4 of the offending machine in ratio of Rs.5,75,000/- and rest of the amount Rs.1,35,400/- to the Respondent No.4 i.e. owner herein to pay the compensation as above.

2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the appellant herein is the insurer of the machine bearing registration number 210 Kobelco Poklen (hereinafter referred to as the “offending machine”). The respondents No. 1 and 2, being the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Tarun Kachlame, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 31,91,396/- for the death of Tarun Kachlame. The accident occurred on 13.06.2016 at approximately 10:00 a.m. at Boria Tibbu Godawri Mines, Khadgoan, District Rajnandgaon, when the offending machine, driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 3, struck a tree during excavation work. The tree subsequently fell upon the deceased, who was a laborer working at the site, causing fatal injuries. It was averred in the claim application that the deceased was employed at the said mines earning a monthly salary of Rs. 6,649/- and was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. The incident was reported to Police Station Khadgoan, leading to the registration of Crime No. 34/2016 against respondent No. 3.

3. Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the appellant insurer. The respondents No. 3 and 4 appeared and filed their written statements denying all allegations and contending that the deceased was unmarried and that the claimants were not dependent on him. The appellant insurer also appeared and denied the claim, asserting that the accident did not occur in a public place and that the insured machine was not involved in the accident. The appellant further contended that the insured equipment was a construction machine not falling within the definition of a “motor vehicle” under the Act, thus rendering the claim application non-maintainable. It was also submitted that the insurance policy did not cover risks to employees of the insured, and hence the deceased did not qualify as a third party under the policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues based on the pleadings, heard evidence from all parties, and concluded that the deceased was indeed traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. An application under Section 170 of the Act was filed and allowed on 09.01.2018. The appellant has deposited Rs. 25,000/- towards the appeal filing fees. The appellant challenges the findings of the learned Tribunal as arbitrary and legally unsustainable, necessitating the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company respectfully submits that the claim petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal as the offending machine, being a Poklen construction vehicle, does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore cannot be classified as a “motor vehicle” for the purposes of the Act; consequently, no liability to pay compensation can be fastened upon the appellant. It is contended that although the offending machine was insured with the appellant, the policy did not