FAO No.1333 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1333 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: November 4, 2009. Inderjeet Singh Chauhan ...Appellant(s) v. Ram Jatan & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Ashok Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Vaneet Soni, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is claimant's appeal challenging the impugned award whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was ordered to be returned to the claimant/appellant for being presented in the court of competent jurisdiction as per provisions of Order 7 rule 10 CPC. The brief facts out of which this appeal has arisen are that the appellant had taken contract of mines in village Khori Jamalpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. On 7.11.2003, the appellant along with others was standing near the mine. Respondent No.1 was driving a machine Popland Komatsu No.4 Model PC-300 over 7S No.J-20090 Model-2002 (Crane Machine) in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the right leg of the appellant. Due to the injuries, right leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee. Hence, this claim petition was filed against the FAO No.1333 of 2008 -: 2 :- respondents. The claim petition was contested by respondents No.2 & 3 by filing separate written statements taking the preliminary objection qua jurisdiction/maintainability as the machine involved in the accident was not a 'motor vehicle' as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) as the same was an earth-moving machine. On merits, the factum of accident and other contents of claim petition were denied and prayer for dismissal of the petition was made. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether accident dated 7.11.2003 which took place at village Khori Jamalpur, causing injuries to Inder Singh Chauhan was caused due to rash or negligent driving of Crane No.J-20090 by respondent No.1 Ram Jatan? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to which amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR3. 5. Relief.” The Tribunal, after recording evidence on issue No.3, held that the Popland machine which was involved in the accident, due to which the appellant sustained injuries, was not registrable under the provisions of the Act and relying upon a judgment of this Court in Mohni Kumar and others v. Punjab State and others, 1998 ACJ 783, held that the claim FAO No.1333 of 2008 -: 3 :- petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable and the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition filed by the appellant and, thus, ordered for return of the claim petition along with original documents for being presented in the court of competent jurisdiction. No other issue was decided by the Tribunal. The aforesaid judgment/award of the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred at law in putting undue reliance upon the judgment in Mohni Kumar's case (supra) as the facts of the aforesaid case are entirely different to the facts of the present case as the Tribunal has ignored the basic fact in the case that there is an insurance contract between the insured and the insurer, wherein the insured article stood categorized under “all other miscellaneous and special type of vehicles”, and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to be paid compensation by the respondent-insurance company. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. For maintaining claim petition under the Provisions of the Chapter-XII of the Act, the injuries must have been suffered in respect of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles as defined under the Act. Section 2(28) of the Act reads as follows:- “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 trailor; but does not include a vehicle running FAO No.1333 of 2008 -: 4 :- upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in 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” While deciding the issue, Tribunal observed as under:- “From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions it is crystal clear that excavator machine Popland was involved in the accident due to which petitioner had sustained injuries. Popland machine is not registrable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The machine runs on chain. If the machine is to be transported from one place to another it has to be transported on a trailer. The machine works in mines. As per ratio of judgment in Mohni Kumar v. Punjab State's case (supra) it is well settled principle of law that the claim petition for compensation for injuries or death involving machine no registrable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. Since Popland machine is not registrable and registered under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, so, this tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try and decide present claim petition. Accordingly, issue No.3 is decided against petitioner.” Thus, as per the evidence adduced on record, the machine in question cannot go on road and can be removed from one place to another only on a trailer. The function of this machine is to move earth from one place to some other place in the mines. The machine is not registrable under the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on FAO No.1333 of 2008 -: 5 :- record, rightly came to the conclusion that the machine in question was not covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out how the case in hand was different on facts than the Mohni Kumar's case (supra). No other judgment contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid case has been referred by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim any compensation from the respondent-insurance company on the basis of insurance certificate, is entirely a different question and the appellant may have any other remedy under the general/civil law for maintaining his claim. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. November 4, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge