On May 9, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court confirmed that an excavator falls within the definition of a ‘motor vehicle’ under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The judgment was passed by Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar in an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. against the compensation awarded in a fatal accident case.
Background of the Case
The case involved the tragic death of a 22-year-old welding worker, Uddal Kesharam Pache, who was run over by an excavator while he was sleeping by the roadside. The accident occurred on August 31, 2010, in Kallur Village, Andhra Pradesh. Despite being rushed to the hospital, the victim succumbed to his injuries.
Read Also:- Motor Vehicles Act: Kerala High Court Rules Section 163A Claims Can Only Be Made Against Owner or Insurer
His parents and younger brother filed a claim (O.P. No. 643/2010) under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur, concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and awarded the claimed amount.
The insurance company, however, appealed against the order, arguing that the excavator, being a chain-mounted special-purpose machine, was not a motor vehicle under the Act. They further claimed the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Key Legal Issue
The main question before the High Court was:
“Whether an excavator is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?”
Section 2(28) defines a ‘motor vehicle’ as any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads, except for those used only in factories, enclosed premises, or on fixed rails.
Court’s Observations
Justice Krupa Sagar analyzed the definition and noted:
“The excavator was not on fixed rails, not in an enclosed premises, and had more than four wheels with engine capacity above 25cc. Therefore, it cannot be excluded from the definition.”
The court emphasized that the exclusion applies only to vehicles used exclusively inside factories or enclosed premises. Since the excavator was operating in a public place at the time of the accident, it qualified as a motor vehicle.
The judge also relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Chairman, R.S.R.T.C. v. Santosh (2013) 7 SCC 94, which clarified that the adaptability of a vehicle for road use is the key factor, not its actual use at the time.
“Once found suitable for use on the road, the nature of the road—public or private—is immaterial,” the Court highlighted.
Compensation Recalculated
While the Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 4,00,000, the High Court found this insufficient. It noted that the Tribunal had assessed just compensation to be Rs. 5,90,000 but had limited the award due to the claim amount mentioned in the petition.
Citing Surekha v. Santosh (2021) 16 SCC 467, the Court stated:
“Just compensation must be granted even if no appeal is filed by the claimants.”
Accordingly, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5,90,000 with 7.5% annual interest.
Case Number- M.A.C.M.A.No.3169 of 2012
