JUDGMENT
V.K. Bali, J.
1. The claimant-appellants in their petition sought compensation to the tune of Rs. Four Lacs by broadly stating that on December 7, 1983. Surjit Singh posted as Time Clerk at Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project was on his official duty and was checking the time of the vehicles. The Drivers of the vehicle were starting the vehicles with the help of each other. Vehicle No. 1 57 had already started and vehicle No. 1 25 was being started by pushing the same with the help of vehicle No. 157. Both the drivers were handling the vehicles rashly and negligently which caused serious injuries to him i.e. Surjit Singh, as a result of which he died. It was further the case of the claimants that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and therefore, they were jointly and severally liable in causing the accident. Besides other, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who entered appearance in their defence denied their liability to pay on the ground that the earth moving heavy machines called by the name of ‘Haul Packs’ were involved in this case and these machines were used only for removing the earth mounds and were not covered by the definition of Motor Vehicle and, therefore, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act were not applicable. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Thus, framed issue No. 3 which reads :-
“3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act. OPR.”
Findings on this issue have been returned in favour of respondents and against the claimants. Obviously, therefore, the claim petition had been dismissed.
2. The sole contention of the learned counsel representing the appellants in the very nature of things is that the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under issue No. 3 are erroneous.
3. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and going through the impugned award, this Court, however, is of the opinion that no fault at all can be found with the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under issue No. 3. Shri Keshwa Land S.D.C. Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project appeared as P.W.1 i.e. witness of the claimants and stated that the machine involved in accident is a heavy each moving machine called ‘Haul Pack’. This machine could only move and could not run and it was not registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Mewa Singh, Junior Engineer, appeared as RW-1 and stated that machines involved in the accident were earth removing machines know as ‘Haul Pack Dumpers’ and these were being stationed at one place. These machines could only work upto 10-20 metres and could not move on the road and work on the Katcha field. He further stated that when these machines are to be removed form one station to another, these can only be taken on trailer as also that the machines are not registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is no doubt true that in cross-examination he stated that machines have tubeless tyres but these tyres require air pressure. He also stated that machines cannot go on road as per traffic system and function of these machines is to load earth from one place and to unload earth at some other place. Amarjit Singh while appearing as respondent No. 3 stated that machines were used for lifting earth from one place to another within the range of 50 meters and the machines move to unload the earth at another place and that these cannot run on the roads. These were heavy machines and whenever these machines were to be removed to another place these had to be taken on trailor. From the evidence the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that machines involved in the accident are not covered by the definition of ‘Motor Vehicles’ as given in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles act and a motor vehicle to be covered under the definition of ‘Motor Vehicle should be apt for use upon roads and does not include machine especially apt in the factory or in other enclosed premises. Taking into consideration the definition of ‘Motor Vehicle’ as given in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles act, the Tribunal in view of this Court on the basis of evidence rightly came to the conclusion that it was not a case which may be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court may have all the sympathies with the claimants but in this case nothing at all can be done to redress their grievance.
4. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.