NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. Vs. SUKRANIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as Act,1988) has been preferred at the instance of the Insurance Company, challenging the award dtd. 23/12/2023 passed in Claim Case M.A.C.C. No.55/2022 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara (M.P.).

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on 10/12/2021 at about 02:30 PM when the deceased Hariom Sallam was working in the mine, the driver/operator of Tata Hitachi Excavator 650 Poclain bearing registration number RJ-06-GB-0081 (respondent No.3 herein), in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly dashed the deceased, on account of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at District Hospital, Chhindwara, during treatment. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR was registered at Police Station, Rawanwara (Shivpuri), District, Chhindwara vide Crime No.55/2022 for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the meantime, the respondent nos.1 and 2- claimants had preferred a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chhindwara, MP. The trial was set into motion and after evaluating the ocular and documentary evidence, the Tribunal vide judgment dtd. 23/12/2023 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.13,91,080.00. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company has preferred the present Miscellaneous Appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim as offending vehicle i.e. excavator (poclain) does not fall within the ambit of Act,1988. The offending vehicle involved in the case does not come within the meaning of 'motor vehicle' under Sec. 2(28) of Act, 1988, being special type vehicle meant to use in the restricted premises. It was neither transport nor strictly non-transport vehicle made exclusively to carry goods, but instead it was an earth moving vehicle, having a specified description as per Sec. 10(2) GQ of the Act, 1988. It is submitted that the concerned excavator was not equipped to travel on roads as it was fitted with steel plates to efficiently operate exclusively within the designated enclosed area of mine premises which was a prohibited area and not open to the public without permission. The learned Tribunal overlooked the fact that the insurance company has produced a letter issued by Regional Transport Office, Chhindwara (MP), which describes the nature of vehicle being disqualified to be registered under the Act,1988. She further argues that the insurance policy being exclusive vehicle insurance under contractor's plant cannot be categorized as a 'motor vehicle policy' under the law. In support of her contentions, she relied upon the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Future General India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santoshi and others passed in M.A. 732/18, dtd. 20/3/2024.