TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (7) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Thirunelveli, on the averments that her husband Gnanamani Nadar on 2.4.1980 at 4.30 p.m., while he was walking along the Tuticorin - Thiruchendur Road, was hit by C. Crane No. 11 belonging to the respondent, being driven in a negligent manner, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same soon after. Compensation of Rs. 15,000 was prayed for. 3. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving of the crane and contending that the accident was due to the fact that the deceased suddenly crossed the road and was caught under the rear left wheel of the crane and also that the compensation was excessive. 4. An Additional counter was later filed cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;motor vehicle' as found in Section 2(18) of the Act. Learned Counsel placed reliance upon certain decisions, which I shall refer to later. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving by R.W.1 was also challenged with reference to the evidence adduced in the case and also with reference to the observation mahazar and other documents. 7. Per contra, Thiru Elamurugan, learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the finding of the Tribunal on both the aspects, deserves to be maintained in view of the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex. B. 1. 8. Following three points arise for consideration: 1. Whether 'crane' is a 'motor vehicle' as defined in the Act attracting the jurisdiction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The concerned crane, even according to its driver, R.W.1, was mechanically propelled. It is obvious that it had been adapted for use upon roads and was in fact at the time of the occurrence being driven in public road - Tuticorin - Thiruchendur road. The crane, therefore, clearly falls within the definition of "motor vehicle" as found above. 11. The reason given by the Tribunal for holding that the crane is not a motor vehicle under the Act is that the concerned Motor Vehicles Inspector refused to inspect the vehicle, since the crane, according to him, was not a motor vehicle. The Tribunal has also stated that the crane had not been registered under the Act and that, therefore, it would not be a motor vehicle. An observation has also been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Malkiat Singh 1988 A.C.J. 553 held that the Combine Harvester being a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads - in the sense of travelling from one place to another - not falling in any of the excluded categories viz. vehicles running upon fixed rails or being adapted for use only in a factory or other enclosed premises, was a motor vehicle under Section 2(18) of the Act. The same Court earlier in Nirmal Bhutani v. Haryana State 1983 A.C.J. 640 held that a road roller was a motor vehicle under the Act. I see no difficulty in holding that crane is a motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. 14. Point No. 2: It is now....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ationed in the centre of the road. There is no basis for the observation of the Tribunal that the deceased due to old age might have dashed against the rear wheel of the crane. I, therefore, hold that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the crane by P.W.1. 15. Point No. 3: Just compensation has now to be determined. The only evidence on this aspect is that of P.W.2, the appellant herein, who is the widow of the deceased. According to her, the deceased was aged 55 at the time of his death and his daily income was Rs. 10. The positive evidence regarding the age of the deceased as tendered by his wife, the appellant herein, has to be preferred being the only evidence on this aspect to the opinion regarding the age, menti....