Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • P.B.Majumdar
  • N.K.Majmudar
  • D.K.Trivedi
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnavadan Gordhandas Shah
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kshitij Rameshbhai Vyas
Acts
  • provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
  • provisions of Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act.12.
  • provisions of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
  • Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act
  • SECTION 22 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
  • State Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts,
  • Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
  • MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • P.B.Majumdar
  • N.K.Majmudar
  • D.K.Trivedi
Judges
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnavadan Gordhandas Shah
  • Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kshitij Rameshbhai Vyas
Acts
  • provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
  • provisions of Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act.12.
  • provisions of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
  • Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act
  • SECTION 22 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
  • State Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts,
  • Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
  • MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (K.R. Vyas, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court considered a challenge to a tribunal's determination concerning whether a bulldozer involved in an accident qualified as a "motor vehicle" under Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Evidence on the record, including a Panchnama of the scene, indicated that at the time of the accident the bulldozer was being driven on a public road while being transported from a workshop to the Kadana Dam site. The tribunal had rejected the contention that the bulldozer was not a motor vehicle and therefore that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act to entertain the claim petition. Mr. Trivedi advanced the primary submission that the bulldozer was not a "motor vehicle" and relied on a Supreme Court judgment (Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa) in support of that contention.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the bulldozer in question is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  2. Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, given the contention that the bulldozer was not a "motor vehicle".

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments advanced by Mr. Trivedi

  • Submitted that the bulldozer is not a "motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • Relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1974) to support the contention that the machinery in question falls outside the statutory definition or its effects regarding registration/taxation and, by implication, jurisdiction under Section 110A.
  • Argued (according to the summary) that the bulldozer might fall within the exception in Section 2(18) as a "vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises."

Tribunal's findings (as summarized by the Court)

  • The tribunal concluded that the bulldozer did not fall within the exception in Section 2(18) because it was being used on a public road and therefore was not adapted for use "only" in a factory or enclosed premises.
  • The tribunal relied on the Panchnama and other evidence showing the scene of the accident to find the bulldozer was being plied on a public road surrounded by fields and residential houses.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777 (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 17) Established principles (in that case concerning Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors) that the test for whether certain machinery/vehicles fall within statutory definitions for registration and taxation depends on their adaptability or suitability to be plied on a road/public place. If capable of being used on a public road, they may be registrable and taxable; if not so capable, they may not be registrable/taxable. The Court distinguished Bolani Ores Ltd., noting that the Supreme Court there did not consider bulldozers and that the decision focused on Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors. The Court applied the general principle from Bolani Ores — adaptability for use on a public road is the key test — and found that the bulldozer in the present case satisfied that test because it was being used on a public road, so the reliance on Bolani Ores did not support Mr. Trivedi's contention.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeded in two main strands: (A) statutory interpretation of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and (B) analysis of the relevance and scope of the Supreme Court decision relied upon by Mr. Trivedi.

A. Interpretation of Section 2(18):

  1. The Court reproduced the definition: a "motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads and includes certain other items, "but does not include" vehicles running upon fixed rails or "a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises."
  2. The Court emphasized that the exception requires two factual predicates: (i) the vehicle must be of a "special type," and (ii) it must be "adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises." The word "only" is critical: if a machine can be used on public roads, it cannot be said to be adapted "only" for enclosed premises.
  3. Applying that textual test to the evidence, the Court noted that the Panchnama and other evidence established that the bulldozer was being driven on a public road (from workshop to Kadana Dam site) and that the scene included fields and residential houses. Because the bulldozer was being used on a public road, it could not be considered adapted exclusively for use within an enclosed premises.
  4. Therefore, on the statutory definition alone, the bulldozer did not fall within the exception and qualified as a "motor vehicle" under Section 2(18).

B. Analysis of Bolani Ores Ltd.:

  1. The Court observed that before the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores Ltd. the specific question of whether a bulldozer is a "motor vehicle" under Section 2(18) was never in issue; the appeals there concerned Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors and questions of registration and taxation under Section 22 and relevant State Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts.
  2. In the Bolani Ores matters, facts differed among the connected appeals: in some instances concessions at the High Court level and admissions at trial resolved whether certain machinery (including caterpillar bulldozers in one appeal) were registrable or taxable, and the Supreme Court's discussion focused on the mechanism and use of dumpers, rockers and tractors rather than bulldozers.
  3. The Court distilled the general principle from Bolani Ores: adaptability or suitability to be plied as a vehicle on a road (i.e., in a "public place" as defined in Section 2(24)) is the relevant test for registrability/taxability and, by analogy, for determining whether an item is a motor vehicle for certain statutory purposes.
  4. Applying that principle to the present facts, because the bulldozer was being taken on a public road, it met the adaptability/suitability test and therefore fell within the general conception of "motor vehicle" in Section 2(18). Accordingly, the Court rejected Mr. Trivedi's reliance on Bolani Ores as supporting his contention that the bulldozer was not a motor vehicle.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The court upheld the tribunal's conclusion: the bulldozer in question is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The tribunal's rejection of the submission that the bulldozer was not a motor vehicle was affirmed by the Court; the tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 110A to entertain the claim petition stands.
  • The Court distinguished the cited Supreme Court authority (Bolani Ores Ltd.) on the ground that bulldozers were not the subject-matter decided by that Supreme Court judgment and applied the general principle from that case (adaptability for use on a public road is determinative) to the facts here.
  • The opinion confines its conclusion to the statutory interpretation and facts before it: because the bulldozer was being used on a public road, it did not fall within the exception for vehicles adapted "only" for use in enclosed premises. The opinion does not announce or record any broader rule beyond the application of those principles to the present facts.

Order: "Order accordingly." (Final disposition reflected in the body of the opinion.)

Show full summary ...

    State Of Gujarat v. Danabhai Bhulabhai & Ors.

    K.R Vyas, J.:—

    1. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    2. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    3. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    4. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    5. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    6. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    7. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    8. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    9. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    10. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    11. Finally Mr. Trivedi submitted that the bulldozer in question is not a ‘motor vehicle’ within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under the provisions of Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

    12. In support of his contention, Mr. Trivedi relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State Of Orissa (1974) 2 SCC 777 : A.I.R 1975 S.C p. 17. The above-mentioned submission of Mr. Trivedi prima facie appears to be quite attractive before one looks at the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

    Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, reads as under:

    “‘Motor 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 trailor, 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.”

    Reading the definition of ‘Motor Vehicle’ it is clear that Motor Vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. That in general is definition of Motor Vehicles. However, an exception has been carved out in the definition and it has been provided that though a machine or a device may be a Motor Vehicle in terms of the aforesaid general definition of the expression ‘Motor Vehicle’, it would not be a Motor Vehicle if either (1) It is running upon fixed rails or (ii) It is a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or any other enclosed premises. Now in order to fall within the exception to the general definition of Motor Vehicle, the machinery or the device should be such as runs upon fixed rails which is not the case before us or it should be a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only on a factory or in any other enclosed premises. The argument was that the bulldozer would fall within the later part of the exception carved out in the definition. If a vehicle has to fall within the later part of the exception given in the definition then, firstly, it should be established that it is a vehicle of a special type and secondly, that it is adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises. This later part of the exception to the expression of the definition ‘Motor Vehicle’ leaves no room for doubt that in order to attract that later part of the exception the vehicle must be adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises as has been rightly stressed by the learned Tribunal. The word ‘only’, appearing in the later part of the definition of Motor Vehicle has an important part to play while interpreting the definition. If a vehicle of a special type which is adapted for use in a factory or in any other enclosed premises is also capable of being used in a public place or a public road, such a vehicle could not be said to be adapted for use only in a factory or only in an enclosed premises, and therefore, such a vehicle would not come within the exception to the definition of Motor Vehicle. In order to come within the exception the vehicle should be so adapted as could be used exclusively in a factory or exclusively in an enclosed premises. Here we have got evidence to show that the bulldozer in question at the relevant time was going on a public road. The Tribunal has with deference to the Panchnama on the record and other evidence pointed out that at the time of the accident, the bulldozer was going from the workshop to Kadana Dam site. The Panchnama shows that on one side of the place of accident there are fields and residential houses. The bulldozer was being plied or used or driven on a public road. It was, therefore, not a vehicle which could not have been used on public road. It could have been used and it was in fact being used on public road. That being the position, it was not a vehicle which was adapted exclusively for being used in an enclosed premises. Though Mr. Trivedi tried to contend that the entire area on which the bulldozer was plying was enclosed area, that submission is not borne out on record. On the other hand, the Panchnama of the scene of the accident as indicated hereinabove shows that the place of accident was a public road surrounded by fields, residential houses etc. Therefore, going by the definition of the expression ‘Motor Vehicle’ and keeping in mind the evidence on record, the submission that bulldozer cannot be said to be a motor vehicle must be said to have been rightly rejected by the Tribunal.

    13. Coming to the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by Mr. Trivedi, it is firstly required to be noticed that the question whether a bulldozer is motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act was never in focus before the Supreme Court. The matter before the Supreme Court pertained to three Civil Appeals, two of which, arose from Orissa and one from Mysore. In the appeal that arose from Mysore, the question pertained only to Dumpers. One of the two appeals which arose from Orissa was filed by Bolani Ores Ltd. Before the Trial Court in the matter of Bolani Ores Ltd. the contention was that as many as eight types of machinery enumerated in the case were not required to be registered under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and they were not liable to tax under the relevant Taxation Act. Out of the those eight types of machinery, at serial No. 3, was the caterpillar Bulldozers. At serial Nos. 1 and 2 were Shovels and Drill Master respectively. In that case, the Trial Court granted the Claim of Bolani Ores Ltd. only as regards Motor Graders which were shown at item No. 6 and rejected the claim with respect to all the remaining seven items including the Bulldozer or the Caterpillar Bulldozer. When the matter went to the High Court, it appears from Para - 2 of the report that the learned Advocate General who appeared for the State made certain concessions and on the basis of those concessions the High Court accordingly modified the order of the Trial Court in respect of item Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In other words, the High Court upon the concession made by the learned Advocate General held in favour of Bolani Ores Ltd. that alongwith some other item Caterpillar Bulldozers were not liable to registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and were also not liable to be taxed under the relevant Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. So far as the Caterpillar Bulldozers were concerned, the matter in that case ended there and the Supreme Court was not at all concerned with the case of Bulldozers.

    14. The other appeal from Orissa was Filed by Orissa Mineral Development Co. Ltd. That company claimed similar exemption from registration and payment of taxes in respect of nine items of machinery and at item No. 6 in the list of its machinery was Caterpillar Bulldozers. In that case the Trial Court on evidence found that the machineries at items 4 to 9 (that would include Caterpillar Bulldozer) were not adapted for regular use on roads and as is clear from Para 3 of the report that fact was admitted by the opposite party. The matter so far as the Caterpillar Bulldozers were concerned came to be finally decided upon admission at the Trial Court stage. That matter was perhaps notagitated even before the High Court and surely it was not agitated before the Supreme Court.

    15. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove were concerned only with Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors (tractairs). Their Lordships were concerned with a question where Dupmers, Rockers and Tractors (tractairs) were liable for registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and were also liable to taxation under the relevant Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. This fact is clear from the opening lines of the judgment wherein Their Lordships stated:

    “These appeals raise a common question as to whether Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors are motor vehicles within the meaning of the relevant State Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts, and are accordingly taxable thereunder.”

    16. This fact is further borne out if we read the report of the judgment. In the report also Their Lordships have examined the mechanism of Dumpers and Rockers in Paragraphs 24,25 and tractors (tractairs) in Paragraph 26. Nowhere in the judgment Their Lordships have considered the mechanism of Bulldozers. That would also be indicative of the fact that Their Lordships were not required to consider whether Bulldozers are Motor Vehicles within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act. That Their Lordships were only concerned with the question about Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors (tractairs) would again be clear if we read the opening lines of paragraph 24 of the report. Even in paragraph 15 of the report there is clear indication to the effect that Their Lordships were concerned only with Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors (tractairs). Thus, Firstly, before the Supreme Court Bulldozers were never in question. To put it differently, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were never required to decide whether the Bulldozer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not decided whether the Bulldozer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act That apart even on the general principles which Their Lordships have initiated while deciding the case of Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors (tractairs) from the standpoint of deciding whether they are liable to registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and taxation under the relevant Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The principle that seems to have been enunciated is that if a machinery or a device or a vehicle could be plied or used on the road in a public place, it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2(18) of the Act and would be liable to registration and taxation. If it is not capable of being plied on a road, it would not be liable to any registration or taxation. If it is adapted or suitable for being plied on a road which is not a public place it would though be liable to registration, it would not be liable to taxation. It is upon these principles that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraph 38 of the report held that Dumpers and Rockers though registrable under the Motor Vehicles Act are not taxable under the Taxation Act as long as they are working solely within the premises of the respective owners and Tractors (Tractairs) are neither registrable nor taxable. The test as laid down by the Supreme Court is adaptability or the suitability for a vehicle or mechanism or a device to be plied as a vehicle on a road which within the meaning of the expression ‘public place’ as defined in Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act is a public place. Even going by that concept as the evidence in the instant case shows the Bulldozer was being taken from the workshop to the Kadana Dam site on a road which was a public road, it was being driven in a public place. It was, therefore, a motor vehicle which answered general concept of the expression as given in the earlier part of the definition of the expression Motor Vehicles and do not attract the later exemption part. The submission of Mr. Trivedi based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by him, therefore, cannot be accepted.

    17. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    18. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    19. [Not reported. Only portions approved for reporting by High Court are reported.]

    20. Order accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    State Of Gujarat v. Danabhai Bhulabhai & Ors.
    (Jun 12, 1991)