Motor vehicle status of a crane on public roads upheld; negligent driving and compensation principles applied.

A mechanically propelled crane used on a public road was treated as a motor vehicle, and the absence of registration did not change its character because it was not a vehicle excluded by the statutory definition. On the evidence of the eye-witness, FIR and observation mahazar, the crane driver was found to have driven rashly and negligently, establishing liability in the motor accident claim. Applying the deceased's age, earnings, dependency and conventional heads of loss, compensation was assessed at Rs. 10,000 as just and reasonable, and the claim dismissal was reversed with interest awarded to the widow.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a mechanically propelled crane used on a public road is a motor vehicle so as to attract the Tribunal's jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the crane driver; (iii) What amount of compensation was just and proper.

Issue (i): Whether a mechanically propelled crane used on a public road is a motor vehicle so as to attract the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The definition of motor vehicle covers any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, subject only to the stated exclusions. The crane was mechanically propelled, had wheels, and was being driven on a public road while being taken from one site to another. The absence of registration did not alter its character, and it did not fall within the excluded categories of fixed-rail vehicles or vehicles of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or enclosed premises.

Conclusion: The crane was a motor vehicle and the Tribunal had jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the crane driver.

Analysis: The eye-witness account was supported by the first information report and the observation mahazar showing the crane in the centre of the road. The version of the driver was not accepted. The evidence established that the crane was being driven rashly and negligently when the accident occurred.

Conclusion: The accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the crane driver.

Issue (iii): What amount of compensation was just and proper.

Analysis: On the evidence accepted regarding the deceased's age, earnings, dependency, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering, a total compensation of Rs. 10,000 was found to be fair and reasonable.

Conclusion: Compensation of Rs. 10,000 was determined to be just and proper.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the claim by the Tribunal was reversed and compensation was awarded to the widow with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on a public road remains a motor vehicle notwithstanding that it is ordinarily used for specialised work or is not registered, and liability in a motor accident claim depends on proof of negligent driving and just compensation on established dependency and loss.

---