Road-Adaptability Brings Factory Forklifts And Crane Within Motor Vehicle Definition; Require Registration Under Motor Vehicles Act: Kerala High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that forklifts and a hydraulic crane operated solely inside a private factory still fall within the definition of motor vehicles under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, making registration and motor vehicle tax obligatory. The decision arose from a petition challenging the Motor Vehicles Department’s direction restraining the petitioner-company from using the equipment without registration and insurance. The Court concluded that the machines’ capability to move on public roads, and not their exclusive use within the factory, determines their statutory status. Finding the department’s directive lawful and the vehicles taxable, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing plywood and veneer, utilised two forklifts purchased in 2005 and 2017 and a hydraulic crane purchased in 2002 exclusively for lifting and shifting timber within its six-acre factory premises. The petitioner asserted that these machines were confined to internal material-handling operations and were never taken onto public roads. Relying on this, the petitioner contended that the equipment did not fall within the meaning of “motor vehicle” under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore did not require registration. The petitioner also pointed to safety inspection reports for the machinery and asserted compliance with factory-related statutory requirements.
The dispute arose after an inspection by the Sub-Regional Transport Officer, initiated on the basis of a complaint, resulted in a direction prohibiting use of the forklifts and crane due to absence of registration, insurance and fitness certification. The petitioner challenged this direction, arguing lack of jurisdiction under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the machinery was operated only within an enclosed private premises.
The respondents maintained that the machines were structurally capable of road use, were unregistered and uninsured, and had not undergone fitness testing. They further relied on statutory definitions, including Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 2(34) relating to “public place,” to assert that the equipment qualified as motor vehicles requiring compliance.
The Court observed: “On a bare reading of Section 2(28), it is evident that the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ is cast in widely inclusive terms, covering any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads, and the only exclusions are vehicles running on fixed rails and those of a special type adapted only for use within a factory or other enclosed premises.”
It stated: “The statutory focus, therefore, is on the adaptability or suitability of the machine for road use, and not on its actual or intended use.” The Court recorded: “Where a machine is structurally capable of road movement—equipped with rubber tyres, functional steering and braking systems, lighting, and mobility features—it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28), even if it is predominantly operated within private premises.”
It further observed: “Conversely, only equipment which, by its very design, is confined exclusively to enclosed premises and is not capable of independent movement on public roads falls within the narrow statutory exclusion.”
The Court stated: “The determinative test is road-adaptability, and machinery such as forklifts, mobile cranes, dumpers, or similar equipment, if structurally capable of being driven on roads even incidentally or occasionally, squarely falls within the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ under the Act.”
The Court recorded: “The Explanation to Rule 2(cab) further clarifies that CEVs may move on public roads only incidentally to their principal off-highway function, for short durations and at speeds not exceeding 50 km/h, and such machinery is treated as non-transport vehicles.”
It observed: “This delineation ensures that only machines inherently incapable of road movement fall outside the scope of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, while all road-capable CEVs, irrespective of the frequency of such road use, remain within the regulatory framework.”
The Court stated: “A combined reading of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 2(cab) thus establishes that any construction equipment vehicle capable of movement on public roads—however occasional or incidental—satisfies the road-adaptability test under Section 2(28) and is a motor vehicle requiring registration under Section 39.”
It recorded: “Viewed on the background of the above principles of law, in the instant case, the specifications of the machines, as submitted by the respondent, reveal that the forklift is equipped with a 48 HP engine… The Hydraulic Pick n Carry crane of 11.4T capacity… has a travel speed of approximately 25 kmph.”
The Court directed: “Accordingly, the forklifts and crane owned by the petitioner are to be held as construction equipment vehicles capable of movement on public roads and do not fall within the exclusion under Section 2(28). They therefore require mandatory registration under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and once they fall within the definition of ‘motor vehicle,’ liability under Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act necessarily follows, irrespective of alleged exclusive use within factory premises.”
“Given the above findings, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, and the writ petition will stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. V. Krishna Menon, Shri. E.K. Madhavan, Smt. P. Vijayamma, Smt. J. Surya, Smt. A.B. Beenu
For the Respondents: Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, Special Government Pleader (Taxes)
Case Title: Natural Wood & Veneers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 : KER : 88131
Case Number: WP (C) No. 19075 of 2025
Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.
