Motor Vehicle falling u/s 2(18) is a motor vehicle.

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 the compensation was excessive.

4. An additional counter was later filed contending that the crane was not a motor vehicle within the definition of the Act and that, therfore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the claim.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.2 and examined one Velu as an eye-witness to the occurrence as P. W. 1. Copy of the first information report in the criminal case registered in connection with the accident, post-mortem certificate, observation mahazar of the scene, athakshi prepared for the seizure of the blood-stained earth were marked as Exs. A-1 to A-4 respectively and the claim of the appellant processed through the Legal Aid Board was marked as Ex. A-5. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the crane was examined as P.W. 1 and the certified copy of the statement of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Tuticorin, was marked as Ex. B.1. On these materials, the Tribunal held that the crane was not a motor vehicle within the definition of the Act. The Tribunal has also rendered a finding that the appellant had failed to prove that the driver of the crane was responsible for the accident and that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane by R.W.1. Claim petition, therefore, was dismissed. The aggrieved widow has filed this appeal.

6. Thiru V. Sanbandamurthy, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the crane was not a motor vehicle as defined in the Act, and that it squarely falls within the definition of 'motor vehicle' as found in S. 2(18) of the Act. Learned Counsel Placed reliance upon certain decisions, which I shall refer to later. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving by R. W. 1 was also challenged with reference to the evidence adduced in the case and also with reference to the observation mahazar and other documents.

7. Per contra, Thiru Elamurugan, learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the finding of the Tribunal on both the aspects, deserves to be maintained in view of the evidence of R.W. 1 and Ex. B-1.

7A. Following three points arise for consideration

1. Whether 'crane' s a 'motor vehicle' as defined in the Act attracting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal?

2. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane by R.W. 1? and

3. What is the just compensation; if any, payable to the appellant?

8. Point No. I : Following facts about the crane, which had caused the accident, emerge from the oral and

documentary evidence. According to R.W. 1, he was the driver of the crane and was driving the crane on the date of the occurrence. According to him, the crane was mechanically propelled vehicle 60 feet long and 10 feet high and