Dismissed¶¶54

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Savita Sandilya

Chhattisgarh HC14 Apr 2026MAC/340/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), MAC No. 340 of 2019, decided 15.04.2026 by Sanjay K. Agrawal J (2026:CGHC:17222). New India Assurance appeal under S.173 MV Act against Rs.21,40,000 award: Hyva/dumper truck insured under Contractor's Plant and Machinery Policy held to be a 'motor vehicle' under S.2(28) MV Act; insurer failed to prove exclusive use in factory/enclosed premises; third-party liability under S.147 is statutory; quantum not reduced; appeal dismissed with parties to bear own costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant-Insurance Company; the Claims Tribunal award of Rs.21,40,000 stands; parties left to bear their own costs. ¶¶54

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant-Insurance Company; the Claims Tribunal award of Rs.21,40,000 stands; parties left to bear their own costs.

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the Hyva bearing No.CG-12-S-4742, insured under a Contractor's Plant and Machinery Policy, is a 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the MV Act attracting statutory third-party liability under Section 147, or whether the insurer's liability is confined by the policy terms to Rs. 3,60,000 +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

Any vehicle which is mechanically propelled and adapted for use upon roads, and does not fall within the exception in the definition, is a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the MV Act.

¶¶33

Ratio / Principle

To bring the vehicle within the policy exception, the Insurance Company had to prove that the Hyva was exclusively being used in a factory or enclosed premises at the time of the accident; it failed to do so, and no such plea was taken in its written statement.

¶¶48

Key takeaways

The offending Hyva bearing No.CG-12-S-4742 falls within the meaning of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the MV Act; there is no good ground to entertain the appeal, which is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶¶48
The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; there is no ground to reduce it.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 2(28), 147, 173 — Hyva truck (No.CG-12-S-4742) insured under Contractor's Plant and Machinery Policy — insurer contended the vehicle was covered as equipment/machinery, not as a motor vehicle, and that third-party liability was capped at Rs.3,60,000 with no extra premium charged — Held: any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, not falling within the statutory exception, is a 'motor vehicle' under S.2(28); the exemption is confined to vehicles exclusively used in a factory or enclosed premises; the insurer failed to prove that the Hyva was exclusively so used at the time of the accident and took no such plea in its written statement; the Hyva is a 'motor vehicle' and statutory third-party liability under S.147 attaches — compensation of Rs.21,40,000 held just and proper — appeal dismissed, parties to bear their own costs. Relied on: Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2005 SC 3428); Chairman, RSRTC v. Smt. Santosh (AIR 2013 SC 2150); Government of AP v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association (AIR 2005 SC 1403); Bose Abraham v. State of Kerala (AIR 2001 SC 835).

2026:CGHC:17222

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 340 of 2019

¶6

The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager Branch Office- Transport Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ...........Non Applicant No. 3, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Savita Sandilya Wd/o Late Sanjeeve Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o H. No. M-143 Azad Chowk, Dipka Colony, Dipka Korba, P. S. Dipka Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ............Applicant No. 1., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Chhedi Lal Sandilya S/o Late Bhagwan Din Aged About 54 Years R/o H. No. M-143 Azad Chowk, Dipka Colony, Dipka Korba, P. S. Dipka Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. .......Applicant No. 2, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Smt. Ishwari Devi Sandilya W/o Chhedilal Aged About 45 Years R/o H. No. M-143 Azad Chowk, Dipka Colony, Dipka Korba, P. S. Dipka Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. .............Applicant No. 2, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Sushant Mahto S/o Brajsundar Mahto Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Thihabarna, P. S. Lohandi Pada, District Dhekanal (Orissa), Hal Mukam- Khusrodih Mines 22 No. Camjp Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (District Name Wrongly Mentioned In The Award). ..........Non Applicant No. 1., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - N. K. Mahaveer Singh S/o Ratan Singh R/o Anurag Coal Ransport Pvt. Ltd. D-18 Urja Nagar, Post Gevra, Project District Korba, Chhattisgarh. .........Non Applicant No. 2, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶15

¶16

For Appellant	:	Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents	:	None though served.
Amicus Curiae -------------------------------	: -----------	Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------

¶17

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶18

(Order on Board)

¶19

15.04.2026

¶20

In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”) the appellant-Insurance Company has questioned award dated 10.10.2018, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.21,40,000/has been awarded to the claimants and the said amount is held to be payable to the appellant- Insurance Company.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company would submits that towards third party the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extend of Rs.3,60,000/- only. The vehicle in question i.e. Hyva bearing No.CG-12-S-4742 was insured under Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Policy as an

¶22

equipment/machinery and not as a motor vehicle under Section 147 of the MV Act. Even otherwise, no extra premium was charged to cover third party liability. As such, the appellant- Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.21,40,000/- to the claimants, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

¶23

None appeared for the respondents though served.

¶24

Learned amicus curiae would also submits that the offending

¶25

vehicle i.e. Hyva bearing No.CG-12-S-4742 is a motor vehicle within

¶26

¶27

the meaning of Section 2(28) of the MV Act and third party liability is statutory under Section 147 of the MV Act.

¶28

I have heard counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶29

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the MV Act, which reads as under:

¶30

“ 2. Definitions. —In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

¶31

(1) to (27) xxxx

¶32

(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; 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 or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters;”

¶33

A careful perusal of the above-quoted provision would show that any vehicle which is mechanically propelled and adapted for use upon roads and doesn't fall within the exception provided therein is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the MV Act.

¶34

The Supreme Court in the matter of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others1 has held that Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words “motor vehicle”. It has been further held that although a ‘trailer’ is separately defined under

¶35

1 AIR 2005 SC 3428

¶36

¶37

Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words ‘motor-vehicle’ under Section 2(28) of the MV Act.

¶38

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and other v. Smt. Santosh and others2 held that once it is found to be suitable for being used on the road, it is immaterial whether it runs on the public road or private road, for the reason, that actual user for a particular purpose, is no criteria to decide the name. It is further held that the exemption is confined only to those kinds of vehicles which are exclusively being used in a factory or in any closed premises and observed in Para-28 as under:

¶39

“ 28. As to whether a particular vehicle can be defined as motor vehicle in terms of Section 2(28) of the Act, is to be determined on the facts of each case taking into consideration the use of the vehicle and its suitability for being used upon the road. Once it is found to be suitable for being used on the road, it is immaterial whether it runs on the public road or private road, for the reason, that actual user for a particular purpose, is no criteria to decide the name. Definition of motor vehicle takes within its ambit, a dumper and tractor. Tractor which is used basically for agricultural purpose and a dumper is used in the factory premises, can suitable be adapted for being used on the road, therefore, they will meet the requirement of definition of motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act. The word `only’ used in Section 2(28) of the Act clearly shows that the exemption is confined only to those kinds of vehicles which are exclusively being used in a factory or in any closed premises. Thus, a vehicle which is not adapted for use upon the road, is only to be excluded.”

¶40

2 AIR 2013 SC 2150

¶41

¶42

Similarly, in the matter of Government of AP and another v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association and others3 has held that

¶43

“road roller” is a motor vehicle and merely because road roller is adapted for repairing of the roads and doesn’t carry passengers or goods, it is no ground to hold that it is not suitable or not adapted for use on the road and it ceases to be a motor vehicle. Even, the view taken in Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association (supra) that a road roller can only be used on the road and it is not build for use off the road, thus, it is a motor vehicle is supported by earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bose Abraham v. State of Kerala and another4 .

¶44

Coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that as per statement of Atul Thakkar, Senior Divisional Manager, examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, the offending vehicle is a Hyva (Truck) bearing No.CG-12-S-4742. Hyva trucks are heavy duty tippers (Dumpers). These vehicles are equipped with specialized hydraulic tripping technique. They are primarily used in mining, construction, and infrastructure projects requiring frequent loading and unloading of materials like sand, rocks etc. and it is specially known for its robust hydraulic systems for efficient loading and unloading work. Further, Exception (e) of the Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy (Ex.D/02), which has been heavily relied upon by the Insurance Company, states that the Insurance

¶45

3 AIR 2005 SC 1403

¶46

4 AIR 2001 SC 835

¶47

¶48

Company is not liable under the policy in respect of any loss of or damage to vehicles designed and licensed for general road use unless these vehicles are exclusively used on construction sites. However, in order to bring out the said clause of the insurance policy from the definition of the ‘motor vehicle’ defined under Section 2(28) of the MV Act, the Insurance Company ought to have proved that the offending vehicle (i.e. Hyva) was exclusively being used in the factory or in the closed premises at the time of accident, which they failed to do so. Even, the statement of the officer of the insurance company would also show that it is not the case of the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle i.e. Hyva is only used in the factory or in the closed premises (construction sites) and no such plea has been taken in the written statement by the Insurance Company in this regard. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the offending vehicle i.e. Hyva would definitely fall within the meaning of ‘motor vehicle’ as provided under Section 2(28) of the MV Act and, therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal. It is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company would argue that the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is also on higher side and, therefore, the same needs to be reduced suitably.

¶50

In this regard, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I do not find any good ground to reduce the

¶51

¶52

amount of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal to the claimants, as the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present

¶53

case.

¶54

In view of foregoing analysis, this appeal is dismissed being meritless by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶55

sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶56

s@if

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Savita Sandilya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Savita Sandilya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanush Dhivar Vs Gangaram

H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kishan Lal Yadav

Branch Manager. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Kisu (Kishu) Bai Patel

Branch Manager Vs Jitu Sahu

Bablu Dewangan Vs Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma

Rameshwari Markhandey Vs Smt. Dropati Markhandey