The classification of dumpers as motor vehicles under the Act is affirmed, and compensation calculations must consider earnings from compassionate appointments.

1. The present appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle, who also happens to be the employer of the deceased. On account of death of the deceased Satish Kumar, a claim petition under S.166 of the Act was preferred by his legal heirs (widow, two minor sons and parents) and the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,68,212 in their favour.

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the claim petition and the memo of appeal, are that the deceased Satish Kumar, son of Neelmani, was employed with appellants SECL as a dumper driver and was working in the Pokhariya Mines, Bishrampur. On 7.12.2002, at about 2.30 p.m., the dumper (haulpak) sunk in Mine No. 9, Pokhariya, as a result of which the deceased received grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to injuries. The claimants, being the widow, two minor sons and parents of the deceased, preferred the subject claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 66,32,264 under different heads on the submission, inter alia, that deceased was earning monthly salary of Rs. 11,480.88 and on account of his death, the claimants have lost the only earning member of the family and, thus, they have suffered loss of dependency income.

3. The appellants SECL, in their reply, stated that the dumper (haulpak) is not a motor vehicle, therefore, it is not registered with the registering authority under the Act and was not plied on public road, therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable and the appellants are not liable to pay compensation. It was also stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself as he got imbalanced and due to fear could not control the vehicle and jumped from the dumper (haulpak). It was further stated by the appellants that Bharti Devi, respondent No. 1, has been granted compassionate appointment and she is getting all the benefits due to the death of her husband. It was also stated by the appellants that the subject vehicle was plying in mines area, which is a private and prohibited area and, thus, the provisions of the Act are not applicable.

4. The Claims Tribunal negatived all the defences raised by the appellants and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,68,212 in favour of the claimants.

5. Reiterating the defences, as were raised before the Claims Tribunal, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has argued that the instant claim petition was not maintainable for the fact that the mines area being a prohibited area is not a public road, and the subject vehicle, not being a motor vehicle, the claim petition was not maintainable. It has been further argued that the widow of the deceased has been granted compassionate appointment, therefore, the amount of compensation assessed is excessive and further that the deceased had died on account of his own negligence, therefore, for this reason also, the claim petition should not have been allowed.

6. This court shall first examine the question as to whether the deceased was himself responsible for causing the accident. The claimants have examined Wipro, son of Trinath, AW 2, who is an eyewitness as he was present at the place of accident. He has been extensively cross - examined by the appellants. In para 12 of his cross - examination, he has denied in no uncertain terms that the deceased jumped out of the vehicle out of panic. In para 13 of the cross - examination, he has further explained the manner in which the accident took place to state that when the deceased had reached the