The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has dismissed an insurance company’s appeal and confirmed that a chain-mounted Poklen construction machine involved in a 2016 workplace accident is a “motor vehicle” under the Motor Vehicles Act. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, required the insurer to deposit the entire award and left it free to recover the owner’s share later.
The case arose from a fatal accident on 13 June 2016 at Boria Tibbu Godawri Mines in Rajnandgaon district. The Poklen being used in road construction struck a tree while excavating; the tree fell and fatally injured 25-year-old labourer Tarun Kachlame. His legal heirs pursued a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking roughly Rs. 31.9 lakh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,10,400 in compensation, allocating most of that liability to the insurer and a portion to the vehicle owner.
The insurer appealed on two linked grounds. It argued that the Poklen was not a “motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(28) because it was a heavy construction machine not adapted for ordinary road use, that the accident occurred on private mining premises rather than a public road, and that the policy did not extend third-party cover to the circumstances alleged. The company relied on precedent that distinguishes vehicles only suited to enclosed industrial use from those adapted for roads. The Tribunal had earlier rejected those defenses and framed issues accordingly.
In rejecting the insurer’s appeal the High Court focused on how the machine was being used at the time of the accident. The court reviewed established Supreme Court precedent and found the dispositive test is whether the machine was being used on a public road and was operated under the regulatory framework of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Poklen in this matter was being used for road construction and was operated under a licence regime governed by the Act. Those facts, the court held, bring the machine within the statutory definition of motor vehicle and the policy’s third-party cover.
The bench also addressed practical consequences. Rather than leave fragmented liability in place, the court directed the insurer to deposit the full amount of the award, with interest as ordered by the Tribunal, within three months of the judgment. The insurer may subsequently seek recovery from the owner and driver in accordance with law. The court noted that the claimants had not received any portion of the award to date and that immediate payment was necessary to give effect to the Tribunal’s order. The appeal was dismissed with that modification and there was no order as to costs.
This ruling follows a line of authority, including Bolani Ores and related Supreme Court decisions, holding that heavy construction vehicles can fall within the Motor Vehicles Act where they are suitable for or actually used on public roads. For practitioners and insurers, the judgment is a reminder that the factual matrix of use and operation will determine statutory coverage more than the machine’s label. For victims and dependants it underscores the court’s willingness to prioritize prompt payment of awards by insurers, even where factual and legal disputes about classification exist.
Case Details : MAC No. 1335 of 2018, Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company vs Kailash Kumar Kachlame and Others. For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshmandar Rasogi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.