1981 Supreme(MP) 307

R. C. Shrivastava, J.
Shardul Singh v. Kallobai.
M. A. No. 114 of 1977 (G); Decided on 24-4-1981.

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 -- S. 2 (18) -- Motor Vehicles -- definition of -- vehicle not mechanically propelled -- when a motor vehicle.

        (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110-A -- application under -- maintainability of -- accident occurring on private place -- application is still maintainable.

        At about 4 p. m. on 29-11-1974, a passenger bus (Registration. No MPH 2715), belonging to the appellant No. 1, met with an accident on the outer side of the open compound of a petrol-pump-cum service station in Kampoo locality of this town. At that time, the appellant No. 3, who was a bus-driver is the employ of the appellant No.1, was sitting on the drivers seat in the vehicle and controlling the steering wheel. As a result of the accident, a boy named Gulsher, aged about 13 years, was crushed to instantaneous death on the spot. His mother, i. e., the respondent, claimed compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Besides the appellants 1 and 3, the appellant No. 2 was also joined as a non-applicant on the allegation that the bus was owned not only by the appellant No. 2 but by him also. The Claims Tribunal made an award of Rs. 5,000 only in favour of the respondent against the appellants 1 and 3 by order dated 4-3-1977, repelling the respondents allegation that the appellant No. 2 was a co-owner of the bus. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed this appeal under section. 110-D of the Act.

        Held : The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the bus did not fall within the meaning of the term motor vehicle under section 2 (18) of the Act as it was not being mechanically propelled at the relevant time. I do not agree. The mere fact that, at that time it was plying on being pushed by men-power and its ignition had not been switched on was entirely insufficient to take it out of the definition of the term Motor Vehicle, because it was not the defence case that the engine fitted in it was not in working order and could not start on switching on the ignition. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants to prove that battery was not fitted in the bus. That had not been pleaded and, therefore, that piece of evidence cannot be looked into. In any case, it was proved by Balmukund (A.W. 1) that, during day time, the bus could be mechanically propelled even without battery as it was a diesel bus. It is not disputed that, at the relevant time, the bus was on four duly fitted wheels, although, in the rear, two additional wheels were wanting does not go to prove that it could not be mechanically driven on four wheels. It actually glided down the service-platform on four wheels. Therefrom, it can reasonably be inferred that it could be, mechanically propelled even on four wheels. Thus, it is clear that it was a mechanically propelled Vehicle adopted for use upon roads and fell within the definition of the term Motor Vehicle.

        The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the spot where the accident occurred not being a public place, the claim was not maintainable. There is no provision to the effect that an application for award of compensation under section 110-A of the Act would not be maintainable unless the accident took place on a public place. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also, thus, without substance. 1979 MPLJ 785 relied on. 1975 ACJ 227 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.