The court upheld that the dozer involved in the accident does not meet the definition of 'motor vehicle', thus rendering the claim for compensation unmaintainable.

1. Appellants - claimants have filed this appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging the impugned award dated 26.8.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 126 of 2009 whereby learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application as not maintainable.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Mahettar Singh was working with SECL, Dipka Coal Mines 2, on the post of EPGH. On 8.6.2009 at about 1.50 a.m. Mahettar Singh along with other co - employees was attending to electrical defect at savel No. 139 at Coal Mines 2. Mahettar Singh was handing over the articles / equipments from ground to upside, while so one dozer No. 11015 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending dozer') driven by NA 1 rashly and negligently knocked down Mahettar Singh and caused accident. In the said accident, Mahettar Singh suffered grievous injuries over his person, his right leg was separated and he became unconscious on the spot. He was taken to Shatabdhi Hospital, Gevra where doctor examined Mahettar Singh and declared him brought dead.

3. Claimants who are widow and children of deceased Mahettar Singh filed application under S.166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 5,35,000 pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was earning Rs. 27,000 per month while working as EPGH with SECL.

4. NA 1, while admitting the fact of accident, denied all other pleadings made in the claim application. It was further pleaded that the pleadings made in the application were fabricated, deceased met with an accident on account of his own negligence and died due to the accidental injuries.

5. NA 2, employer - SECL, submitted reply to claim application and denied the happening of the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending dozer by NA 1. Widow of the deceased has been given compassionate appointment on the post of category 1 at Head Office, Bilaspur. Accident took place in mines. Dozer does not come within the purview of 'motor vehicle' under the Act of 1988 and there is no provision for its registration with the RTO. SECL being a Public Sector Undertaking of Central Government and in discharge of legal liability, amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was deposited with Commissioner but, in absence of appearance of claimants even after service of notice by the Labour Court, amount of compensation deposited by NA 2 was returned back.

6. Based on the pleadings made by the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal has formulated as many as eight issues for consideration, including the issue with regard to the maintainability of the claim application under issue Nos. 6 and 7. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by the respective parties learned Claims Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the application filed under S.166 of the Act of 1988 by the claimants was not maintainable and dismissed the application vide impugned order.

7. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in arriving at a finding that the application filed under S.166 of the Act of 1988 is not maintainable in the facts of the case by recording a finding that the offending dozer with which the deceased suffered accident does not come within the purview of 'motor vehicle', hence, the claim application filed under S.166 of the Act of 1988 is not maintainable; and further erred in holding th