The Kerala High Court has ruled that forklifts and cranes, even when used exclusively within the confines of a private factory, constitute “motor vehicles” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus must be registered and taxed. The case arose when a company challenged a government directive which prohibited use of its forklifts and crane, citing lack of registration, insurance, and fitness certification. These machines were used solely for material-handling inside the petitioner’s factory. The petitioner argued that these machines were machinery under the Factories Act, 1948, subject to periodic safety inspections and fire insurance coverage, and not “motor vehicles.” It contended that Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates registration only for vehicles used in a “public place,” whereas its equipment operated entirely within private premises and was not meant for road use.
On the other hand, the authorities argued that the equipment in question was capable of being used on public roads. They pointed out that the factory premises was accessible to workers, visitors, and other vehicles, and thus qualified as a “public place” under the Motor Vehicles Act. They also noted that the machines had never been registered, insured, or fitness-tested since their purchase. The machines included a forklift and a water-cooled diesel mobile hydraulic crane, which, according to the government, fell under the classification of construction-equipment vehicles because they were self-propelled, had wheel assemblies, and could travel, albeit with certain safety restrictions.
The High Court analyzed the definition of “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the Act, which includes mechanically propelled vehicles adapted for use upon roads, except those vehicles that are specially intended only for use in factories or enclosed premises. The court also considered the amended Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which introduced a category of “construction equipment vehicles,” including wheel loaders, mobile cranes, and forklift trucks. The Court examined technical specifications of the petitioner’s machines: the forklift was fitted with a diesel engine of significant power, and the crane had an 11.4-ton capacity engine and was capable of moving at a limited speed when unloaded. These features, the court held, showed that the machines were “capable of movement on public roads” and were not confined to purely internal, enclosed factory use. As such, they did not fall within the exclusion under Section 2(28).
By classifying these machines as motor vehicles, the Court held that they were subject to statutory obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act, including registration and tax liability. The High Court directed the petitioner to get its forklifts and crane registered, insured, and fitness-certified, and also to comply with tax obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act or relevant state taxation laws for construction-equipment vehicles. The Court’s decision emphasizes that machines used in industrial settings cannot automatically be excluded from motor vehicle regulation merely because they operate within private premises, particularly when their design and capability make them “road-capable” in legal terms.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.