JUDGMENT :- Widow of the victim of a road accident, whose application for compensation had been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the grounds that the vehicle involved viz. a mechanically propelled crane, is not a motor vehicle and also that the negligence of the driver of the crane had not been established, has filed this appeal challenging the above two findings.

2. The appellant filed the claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 162 of 1980 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Thirunelveli, on the averments that her husband Gnanamani Nadar on 2-4-1980 at 4.30 p.m., while he was walking along the futicorin-Thirucliendur Road, was hit by C. Crane No. 11 belonging to the respondent, being driven in a negligent manner, sustained serious injuries and succumbled to the same soon after. Compensation of Rs. 15,000/- was prayed for.

3. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving of the crane and contending that the accident was due to the fact that the deceased suddenly crossed the road and was caught under the rear wheel of the crane and also that t