1 / 8 2025:CGHC:48026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2269 of 2019 Reserved on : 18.08.2025 Delivered on: 18.09.2025 1. The Colliery Manager Shriram Janam Singh, S/o Late Jajuju Karan Singh, Aged 53 Years, S.E.C.L. Baroud, P. S. and Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2. General Manager S.E.C.L. Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1. Smt. Nirmala Ratnesh W/o Late Santosh Kumar Ratnesh Aged About 30 Years 2. Kishan Ratnesh S/o Late Santosh Kumar Ratnesh Aged About 12 Years, Minor through Mother Smt. Nirmala Ratnesh, W/o Late Santosh Kumar Ratnesh 3. Karan Ratnesh S/o Late Santosh Kumar Ratnesh Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Nirmala Ratnesh, W/o Late Santosh Kumar Ratnesh, 4. Narmada Prasad S/o Late Horil Ratnesh Aged About 62 Years 5. Smt. Girija Ratnesh W/o Narmada Prasad Ratnesh Aged About 58 Years All are R/o Village Parsahi, P. S. Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Safed Khadan (Do Muhani), P. S. Torwa, Tehsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6. Suklal @ Tuklal Das S/o Firtu Das Mahant Aged About 51 Years R/o Pandripani, P. S. Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Present Residing At Secl, Baraud, Driver of Loader, M 179, Nawapara, P. S. Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Vaibhav Kartikeya Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 8 C.A.V. Judgment Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 20.08.2019 passed by Learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 500/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application in part filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 and awarded Rs. 35,52,250 as total compensation and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicants therein jointly and severally and first liability upon non-applicant No. 3. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 05.04.2017 at about 2:20 p.m., Santosh Kumar Ratnesh had gone to Barod mine to load coal on his truck (No. CG-12 AM-7592). After getting down from the truck for loading, driver of the loader machine (non-applicant No. 1) drove the machine negligently, ran over Santosh Kumar. His neck was separated, and he died on the spot. 3. Appellants-claimants, widow, children and parents of deceased- Santosh Kumar Ratnesh filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 60,82,800/- on the basis of pleadings made therein. 4. Respondent No. 6/ Non-applicant No. 1 has filed reply to the claim application opposing the claim application. It is further stated that the claim application has been filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, which is not applicable in this case. Non-applicant No. 1 is a regular employee of S.E.C.L., working as a loader operator, was driving the vehicle carefully at the time of the accident. Deceased, Santosh Kumar Ratnesh, was employed 3 / 8 as a driver with T.R.N. Company Field Kasaiya. Claim is to be filed under Employees’ Compensation Act and as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, it is the employer, T.R.N. Company Field Kasaiya and the insurer of vehicle No. CG-12-AM-7592, who are responsible for payment of compensation. Hence, even if any liability of satisfying the amount of compensation arises, it is that of the insurer of vehicle No. CG-12-AM-7592 and not of Non-applicant No. 1. 5. Appellants/ Non-applicants No. 2 and 3 jointly submitted reply and pleaded that the accident took place inside Baroud mine, which is neither a public place nor a road, and therefore the provisions of the Act of 1988 do not apply. Instead, the case falls under the Mines Act, 1952. They further stated that the loader machine (No. TL-360-4431) is not a registered motor vehicle and is used only for mining operations. Since the accident occurred when deceased was on duty, his employer company is liable for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act and the employer company is necessary party. They also pleaded that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, as the incident occurred in Barod mine, Raigarh. 6. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties had allowed the application in part, holding the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 to be maintainable as the loader machine falls within the definition of Motor Vehicle and that deceased Santosh Ratnesh died in a motor accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of loader machine No. TL-360- 4431 by non-applicant No. 1, computed the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 35,52,250. 7. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the machine involved in accident is a vehicle within the definition of Act of 1988. ‘Motor vehicle’ is defined under Section 4 / 8 2(28) of the Act of 1988, wherein the vehicle of special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle running upon fixed rails is excluded from the definition of motor vehicle. Claims Tribunal further erred in overlooking the fact that the place of accident is restricted area for general public and it is enclosed mining area and therefore also Claims Tribunal erred in arriving at a conclusion that claim application filed under the provisions of the Act of 1988 is maintainable. In alternate, he would submit that deceased also contributed to the accident and therefore principle of contributory negligence would also apply. Place of accident is within Raigarh district and therefore Claims Tribunal at Raigarh is having the jurisdiction to consider and decide the claim case, however, the claim application was filed at Bilaspur usurping jurisdiction of Tribunal at Raigarh. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Mohni Kumar and others vs. Punjab State and others reported in 1998 ACJ 783 and the decision of this Court in the case of Rajeshwari and others vs. Rasool Mohammed passed in MAC No. 1000 of 2014 decided on 08.12.2020. 8. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 5/ claimants would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciating evidence available in record justified in recording a finding that the vehicle with which accident occurred falls within the category of motor vehicle, defined under Section 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. He would submit that though the accident occurred in the mines area, but with the motor vehicle owned by Respondents No. 2 & 3, hence, Claims Tribunal justified in entertaining claim application and awarding amount of compensation to the claimants. He lastly contended that before accident claimants were residing within Bilaspur area as mentioned in the cause title of the impugned award and therefore Claims 5 / 8 Tribunal justified in entertaining application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. The primary contention of learned counsel for appellants is that the loader machine with which accident occurred is not a motor vehicle within the definition as provided under Section 2(28) of the Act of 1988. Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to extract the provision under Section 2(28) of the Act of 1988, which reads as under- “2. Definitions:- (28) "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 9[twenty-five cubic centimetres]; 11. Bare perusal of aforesaid definition of motor vehicle would show that it specifically provides any vehicle mechanically propelled adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto; and very specifically excluded a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of special type for use only in factory or any other enclosed premises area or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres. 12. According to the evidence brought on record by the appellants/ non- applicants before the Claims Tribunal would show that the appellants have not filed invoice of vehicle/ machine involved in accident. The document 6 / 8 Article 3 forming part of the record would show that it is a loader, nature of work is mentioned as loading. In evidence of NAW-3-1, Vijay Kumar, Security Officer, S.E.C.L. Barod has stated that the machine used for loading coals which falls within the category of heavy earth moving machine. It is not used for the purpose of carrying passengers or transportation and it is not registered under the Act of 1988. In cross-examination, this witness has categorically stated that loader machine which was involved in the accident run on tyre wheels (rubber padded wheels). There is no evidence available in record that the machine as stated by the counsel for appellants is a vehicle not operated by motor or is not mechanically propelled vehicle. It is also not the submission of learned counsel for appellants or there is any evidence in this regard that it runs on fixed rails and his special type vehicle adopted for use only in factory or any other closed premises. 13. Under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, definition of ‘construction equipment vehicle’ is provided which reads as under: 2. (ca) "construction equipment vehicle" means rubber tyred, (including pneumatic tyred), rubber padded or steel drum wheel mounted, self-propelled, excavator, loader, backhoe, compactor roller, dumper, motor grader, mobile crane, dozer, fork lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof designed for off-highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking, irrigation and general construction but modified and manufactured with "on or off" or "on and off" highway capabilities. Explanation.--A construction equipment vehicle shall be a non-transport vehicle the driving on the road of which is incidental to the main off- highway function and for a short duration at a speed not exceeding 50 kms per hour, but such vehicle does not include other purely off- highway construction equipment vehicle 7 / 8 designed and adopted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mine other than road network, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power.” 14. From bare perusal of “construction equipment vehicle” would show that it means rubber tyred self-propelled, excavator, loader and other vehicles excluding dozer have been excluded as construction equipment vehicle. In the definition of construction equipment vehicle also the vehicles particularly for highway construction equipment vehicle designed and adopted for use for in enclosed premises or mines other than road network not equipped to travel on public road on their own power. From the explanation clause of its definition defined under Rule 2 is of the vehicle not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power. 15. Appellants/ non-applicants No. 2 & 3 before the Claims Tribunal have not brought any evidence that the vehicle/ machine involved is not equipped to travel on public road on their own power. 16. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for appellants in case of Mohni Kumar (supra) is on different facts. In the said case, consideration of the Court therein was of definition as provided under Section 2(18) of the Act of 1988 of invalid carriage. 17. The decision in the case of Rajeshwari (supra) is also on different facts. In that case, the vehicle involved is a dozer with a collar chain fitted vehicle which cannot be used on highway or public roads. 18. Considering the facts of the case and evidence brought on record by the respective parties before the Claims Tribunal in particular the evidence of NAW-3-1, Vijay Kumar, Security Officer of S.E.C.L. that the loader machine is a rubber tyre vehicle, self propelled and thereore submission of learned counsel for appellants that it does not fall within the motor vehicle defined 8 / 8 under Section 2(28) of the Act of 1988 is not sustainable, accordingly it is repelled. 19. So far as the other submission of learned counsel for appellants that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased also, no such evidence is brought on record by the appellants/ non-applicants No. 2 & 3 before the Claims Tribunal. Contributory negligence is a fact requires to be proved. Driver of offending vehicle is not examined before the Claims Tribunal by non-applicant-Insurance Company which could be the best evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence, hence, the said ground raised by learned counsel for appellant that the deceased was also contributory negligent in the accident is not sustainable and it is also repelled. 20. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn