Registered Cranes, Excavators Are 'Motor Vehicle' If Road Use Permitted, Insurer Liable Even If Accident Occurs In Mine: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that earth moving machines like road rollers, excavators, or cranes, if duly registered with the Transport Department under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and have permission for normal road use, qualify the definition of 'motor vehicle'.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi further held that such machines will then make the insurance company liable for accidents caused, irrespective of the fact whether the accident occurred on the road or in an enclosed space like mine. It observed,

"If the excavator is not registered, and is not capable of normal road use, it does not fall under the Act, 1988. But, if is registered, insured, and permitted to move on public roads even occasionally, then it would be treated as a motor vehicle under the Act, 1988. Precisely, a vehicle adapted for use on road and duly registered is a motor vehicle. Machines like road rollers, excavators, or cranes, when registered, come within the purview of Act, 1988, irrespective of premises of accident either restricted or open."

In the case at hand, insurer challenged an award passed by the Motor Vehicle Tribunal, making it liable to compensate for the death of a mine worker after bring dashed by an excavator.

The insurer made two-fold arguments:

One, MV Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim as offending vehicle i.e. excavator does not fall within the ambit of Motor Vehicles Act for the reason that it is a special type vehicle meant to use in the restricted premises; it was not equipped to travel on roads on account of being laden with steel belts.

For context, under the MV Act, "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads but does not include a 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.

Two, the insurer argued that the accident occurred in an enclosed space, i.e. mine and not on the road.

The Court however found that the excavator in question registered with the Road Transport Department. It thus held,

"Once it is established that the excavator in question is duly registered with the Transport Department and bears a registration number under the Act, 1988, it satisfies the definition of a “motor vehicle” as contained in Section 2(28) of the Act. The mere fact that the vehicle is chain- mounted or primarily used for construction work, does not take it outside the purview of the statute". 

Reliance was placed on Bose Abraham v State of Kerala (2001) where the Supreme Court held that "excavators and road rollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under that Act."

The court, therefore, dismissed the appeal. 

Case Title: New Insurance Company v Sukraniya [MA 3597 of 2024] 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 247

For Appellant: Advocate Devyani Singh 

For Respondents 1 and 2: Advocate Rahul Kumar Tripathi 

Respondent 4: Advocate Ankit Shrivastava

Click here to read/download the Order