1 2025:CGHC:18246 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 425 of 2019 The General Manager (EXCV) S. E. C. L., Gevra Project, Tehsil Dipka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Sarita Banjare W/o Late Lalit Narayan Banjare Aged About 22 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Quarter No. 83/1 Railway Station Colony Korba, Tehsil & District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Bhumika Banjare D/o Late Lalit Narayan Banjare Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Banjare, W/o Late Lalit Banjare, Caste Satnami, R/o Quarter No. 83/1 Railway Station Colony Korba, Tehsil & District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3. Punau Ram Banjare S/o Late Vishram Banjare Aged About 48 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Quarter No. 83/1 Railway Station Colony Korba, Tehsil & District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Meena Banjare W/o Punau Ram Banjare Aged About 44 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Quarter No. 83/1 Railway Station Colony Korba, Tehsil & District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5. Mahendra Sharma S/o Prayag Sharma R/o Shakti Nagar, Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Through The General Manager (EXCV), S E C L Gevra, Tehsil Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.26 16:36:27 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Kartik Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. O. P. Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 22.04.2025 1. This is an owner’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 15.10.2018 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (CG) in M.A.C.T. No.48/2013. 2. The gist of claim before the Tribunal was that in the intervening night of 23/24.07.2012, when deceased Lalit Narayan Banjare was coming from Gevra to Korba in a Sumo vehicle along with two other persons, around 12 o’clock midnight respondent No.5 Mahendra Sharma driving the offending vehicle i.e. Dumper No.133, Model Mark – 30 B, 120 Ton in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said Sumo car, as a result of which, Lalit Narayan suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation under various heads. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,90,392/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization in favour of the claimants and against the owner (appellant), against which the present appeal has been filed by the owner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the offending vehicle is a machine which was being used in the factory in a restricted area, therefore, it does not fall under the category of Motor Vehicle. He further submits that the accident did not take place on the road but it happened in a restricted area where 3 general public was not allowed to travel. Therefore, the owner is not liable for payment of compensation and prays for allowing the appeal by exonerating the owner from its liability 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle in question does not fall in the category of motor vehicle and the accident did not take place on the road. 7. In their reply to the claim application itself it has been pleaded by the appellant-owner that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Haul Dumper which is not driven on any common or public road but is used for coal production in a restricted area of the mine. It has also been pleaded that the load carrying capacity of the vehicle in question is 8 times more than that of an ordinary Dumper, therefore it is a special type of machine and does not fall in the category of motor vehicle as per the definition given under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the definition of 'Motor Vehicle' as defined under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which for ready reference is reproduced hereinunder: “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 chasis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a 4 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 [twenty-five cubic centimetres]. 9. In the case, two witnesses, Sarita Banjare (AW-1) and Sashikant (AW-2), have been examined on behalf of the claimants side whereas the driver of the offending vehicle M. P. Sharma (NAW-1) and Ravindra Kumar Upadhyay (NAW-2) have been examined on behalf of the owner. Charge sheet has been filed by the Police against the driver respondent No.5 Mahendra Sharma. 10. Learned Tribunal, while discussing both the grounds raised by the owner, in paragraphs 18 to 24 of its award, has held that it has not been disputed by the owner that the machine/vehicle in question is a Haul Dumper. It has also not been disputed that the said Haul Dumper has an engine, steering, brakes, accelerator, wheels etc.. From the certified copy of the spot map Ex. P-3, it is clear that the accident took place on the road. It is also clear that the Dumber in question had come on the road i.e. it was suitable to run on the road. No evidence has been produced by the owner on the point that the said Dumper was designed to work only within their commercial premises. The owner has also not produced any document to show that the vehicle in question is a machine which does not fall under the category of motor vehicle. 11. On this subject-matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. (M/s.) Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1968 Ori 1, held that if a vehicle is fit and suitable for being used on a road, it is a motor vehicle and it is immaterial whether it runs on a private road or a public road. In Central Coal Fields Ltd. (M/s.) Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 SC 1371, it has been held that the mere fact that the Dumpers or Rockers are heavy and cannot move on the roads 5 without damaging them is not to say that they are not suitable for use on roads. In the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. v. Uma Devi, 1998 ACJ 856 (Pat), it has been held that when all the components of a motor vehicle are attached to a Terex and when it is mechanically plied by an engine, then it comes within the definition of motor vehicle. 12. While dealing with the issue whether a particular vehicle can be defined as motor vehicle in terms of Section 2(28) of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Santosh and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 94, has clearly held that the definition of motor vehicle takes within its ambit, a Dumper. A Dumper is used in the factory premises, can suitably be adapted for being used on the road, therefore, it will meet the requirement of the definition of motor vehicle under Section 2 (28) of the Act. In para-30, it has been observed as under: “28. As to whether a particular vehicle can be defined as motor vehicle in terms of Section 2(28) of the Act, is to be determined on the facts of each case taking into consideration the use of the vehicle and its suitability for being used upon the road. Once it is found to be suitable for being used on the road, it is immaterial whether it runs on the public road or private road, for the reason, that actual user for a particular purpose, is no criteria to decide the name. The definition of motor vehicle takes within its ambit, a dumper and tractor. Tractor which is used basically for agricultural purpose and a dumper is used in the factory premises, can suitably be adapted for being used on the road, therefore, they will meet the requirement of definition of motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act. The word `only’ used in Section 2(28) of the Act clearly shows that the exemption is confined only to those kinds of vehicles which are exclusively being used in a factory or in any closed premises. Thus, a vehicle which is not adapted for use upon the road, is only to be excluded. ” 6 13. In the light of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the evidence brought on record, this Court is of the opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal that the vehicle in question falls in the category of motor-vehicle is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 14. In view of the same, this Court does not find any error or irregularity in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal calling for an interference. 15. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai