A bulldozer is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it is not adapted or suitable for use on public roads.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellants have called in question the sustainability of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul, in Claim Case No. 18 of 1992.

2. The facts, as have been unfurled, are that the respondent, a minor being represented by his guardian, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act putting forth a claim of Rs. 1,19,000 against the present appellant, namely, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") and its employees. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that on December 22, 1989, at about 2.30 p.m. the claimant accompanied by a girl named Sangeeta was proceeding on the side of the road from PK-1 to PK-2. At that juncture the vehicle, which was engaged by the Board for loading coal, dashed against a wall being negligently driven by the driver as a result of which the said wall fell on the claimant who sustained serious injuries. He availed of treatment from December 22, 1989, to January 5, 1990, and eventually his leg was amputated. Because of the injuries sustained by him he put forth a claim of Rs. 1,19,000 on various heads.

3. The claim petition of the claimant was resisted by the Board contending that the claimant had sustained injuries due to the fall of the wall and the vehicle, the bulldozer, was driven carefully by the driver of the Board, and hence, no liability could be fastened on the Board. It was further put forth that the vehicle was driven inside the private premises and vehicle in question being not a motor vehicle, the claim application was not maintainable before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal framed as many as ten issues. Dealing with the contention of the Board that the bulldozer is not a motor vehicle within the ambit and sweep of the definition of Motor Vehicles Act, it came to hold that the bulldozer is a motor vehicle as per the definition of the Act. The Tribunal took into consideration the injuries sustained by the claimant and the amount spent by his guardian in his treatment and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,15,000 towards compensation. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent. from the date of presentation of the claim petition.

5. R.S. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised a singular contention that the vehicle involved in the accident was a bulldozer and the same being not a motor vehicle as defined under the Act the application before the Tribunal was not maintainable.

6. Resisting the aforesaid submission, G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the bulldozer is a motor vehicle as defined under the Act. He has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Harrisons and Crosfield Ltd. v. Kerala State, AIR 1971 Ker 329 and State of Gujarat v. Danabhai Bhulabhai [1991] 2 Gujarat LJ 404,

7. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to the definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Act which reads as under :

"'Motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding thirty-five cubic centimetres."

8. From a fair reading, of the aforesaid definition it is graphically clear that a "motor vehicle" means any wheeled conveyance which is propelled mechanically arid is adapted for use on the road and does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of special type for use only in a factory or any another enclosed premises. The word "adapted" came t