The court held that a road roller qualifies as a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, and thus, the insurance policy covers third-party liability despite the exclusions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the insurance company-appellant, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the claimants- respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle-respondent nos. 5 and 6.

2. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the judgment/award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag in Claim Case (Motor Accident Claim Case) No.81 of 2013, whereby, the said claim case filed by the claimants has been allowed and award of Rs.5,29,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company.

3. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the insurance company-appellant submits that the said claim case was instituted for compensation alleging that on 26.11.2012 at about 08:00 P.M., the deceased Sunil Kumar Sao was coming from Charhi to his house Hurhuru by motorcycle. When he reached near Mukundganj NH-33, a Roller bearing No. JH-01AE-4986 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, he received serious injuries and he died during treatment at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. He submits that an FIR being Sadar (Mufasil) P.S. Case No.939/2012 was registered under Section 279/338/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code on 27.11.2012 against the driver of the offending vehicle. He then submits that the said claim case was instituted stating therein that the deceased Sunil Kumar Sao was a Mechanic of Scooter and Motorcycle and he earned Rs.15,000/- per month and it was also stated therein that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. He submits that in this background, the said claim case was instituted and the learned Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.5,29,000/- in favour of the claimants, which is against the mandate of law. The point raised by Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant is that the said vehicle being Road Roller is not the vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act, 1988”) and under the Contractors Plant Machinery (CPM), the insurance is not covering third party insurance. He draws attention of the Court to the insurance policy and submits that there is exclusion clause under the exclusion extension and the vehicle was plying on the general road and in view of that, as per the exclusion clause third party insurance is not covered. He also submits that the insurance policy is not a motor policy. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Manager Legal, M/s. Future Generali Insurance Company Limited v. Manjulata Rout and others in M.A.C.A. No.815 of 2020 and submits that the case of the appellant is fully covered in light of the said judgment. On these grounds, he submits that the award may kindly be set aside.

4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle-respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that the insurance policy was in the nature of Contractors Plant Machinery Insurance Policy and it was valid from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013 and the accident took place on 26.11.2012 and, as such, there is no dispute that during the validity of the insurance policy, the accident took place. He draws attention of the Court to the schedule and specifications of insured items including extensions and submits that under the head of third party liability (TPL), the amount has been paid. He further draws attention of the Court to Sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act, 1988 and submits that light motor vehicle is described therein which includes Road Roller. By way of referring Section 10(2)(d) and (i) of the Act, 1988, he submits that the Road Roller is also described therein. By way of referring Rule 2(cab) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Rules, 1989”), he submits that the construction equipment vehicle i