Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a motor accident claim filed by Rishi Ranjan Mishra before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saket, New Delhi, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On 5th September 2013, while he was at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, a Reach Stacker hit him and ran over his pelvic region, causing severe injuries. As a result, his right leg had to be amputated and he suffered 90% physical disability, which he claimed rendered him 100% functionally disabled. He sought compensation of Rs. 75 lakhs. The insurer, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the Reach Stacker was not a 'motor vehicle' as defined in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, because it was used within enclosed premises and thus excluded from the definition. The Tribunal, by order dated 9th January 2018, accepted the insurer's contention and dismissed the claim petition. It observed that for a machine to be a motor vehicle under Section 2(28), it must be mechanically propelled and capable of being used on the road, and that a vehicle used solely within enclosed premises was excluded even if mechanically propelled. The claimant appealed to the High Court. The High Court, by judgment dated 5th September 2019, set aside the Tribunal's order, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Western Coalfields Limited v. State of Maharashtra, and held that a Reach Stacker qualifies as a motor vehicle despite being used in a restricted area. The correctness of this finding is now under scrutiny in the present civil appeal by the Container Corporation of India Limited. The Supreme Court is yet to render its final decision.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Definition of Motor Vehicle - Reach Stacker Qualifies as Motor Vehicle - Section 2(28) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The High Court, relying on Western Coalfields Limited v. State of Maharashtra, held that a Reach Stacker used at an Inland Container Depot, though operating within enclosed premises, is a mechanically propelled vehicle and qualifies as a motor vehicle under the Act, rejecting the insurer's contention that it falls under the exclusion for vehicles used solely in enclosed premises. The Supreme Court is seized of the correctness of this view. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Reach Stacker used within an Inland Container Depot qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Law Points
- Definition of motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Exclusion of vehicles used solely in enclosed premises
- Applicability of Western Coalfields Limited v. State of Maharashtra precedent
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (07) 41
Civil Appeal No. 10526 of 2024
Container Corporation of India Limited
Rishi Ranjan Mishra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Motor accident compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Claimant Rishi Ranjan Mishra sought compensation of Rs. 75 lakhs for injuries sustained in an accident involving a Reach Stacker at the Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi.
Filing Reason
On 5th September 2013, the claimant was hit by a Reach Stacker, resulting in severe pelvic injuries, amputation of right leg, and 90% physical disability (100% functional disability), prompting the filing of the compensation petition.
Previous Decisions
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, P.O. MACT (SE-01) Saket Courts, allowed the insurer's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the claim petition on 9th January 2018, holding that the Reach Stacker was not a motor vehicle under Section 2(28) MVA as it was used within enclosed premises. On appeal, the High Court set aside this order on 5th September 2019, relying on Western Coalfields Limited v. State of Maharashtra and held that the Reach Stacker qualifies as a motor vehicle.
Issues
Whether a Reach Stacker used within an Inland Container Depot qualifies as a 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Submissions/Arguments
The insurer (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) argued that the Reach Stacker is not a motor vehicle as it is a special kind of vehicle used within enclosed premises and excluded from the definition under Section 2(28) MVA.
The claimant contended that the injury was caused by a mechanically propelled vehicle and the compensation claim was maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, P.O MACT(SE-01) Saket Courts answered the question in the negative in a petition for compensation filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988...
This came to be allowed by the Tribunal on 9th January 2018, observing that Section 2(28) MVA makes it clear that there are two requirements for a particular machine to be considered a motor vehicle i.e. it has to be mechanically propelled and capable of being used on the road...
Learned Single Judge of the High Court placed reliance on the judgments of this Court inter alia Western Coalfields Limited v. State of Maharashtra and held that in light thereof, a Reach Stacker would also qualify as being a motor vehicle.
Procedural History
Claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by Rishi Ranjan Mishra before MACT Saket Courts (MACT Petition No. 4791 of 2016) seeking compensation for injuries from an accident on 5th September 2013 involving a Reach Stacker at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad. Insurer filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC objecting that the vehicle was not a motor vehicle. Tribunal allowed the application on 09-01-2018 and dismissed the claim. Claimant appealed to High Court in MAC. App. No. 614/2018. High Court allowed the appeal on 05-09-2019, setting aside the Tribunal order and held the Reach Stacker to be a motor vehicle. Container Corporation of India Limited (appellant) filed Civil Appeal No. 10526 of 2024 before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 2(28), Section 166
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
