Mishri Bai and ors. Vs. Munna and ors.

Mishri Bai and ors. vs Munna and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 23, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510841

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510841
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.S. Jha and ;P.K. Jaiswal, JJ.
Decided On: May 23, 2005
Case Number: M.A. No. 131 of 2001
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(f): [Dipak Misra, K.K. Lahoti & Rajendra Menon, JJ] Service Tax - Packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944? Finance Act 932 of 1994), Section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - Held, The first limb of the inclusive defi...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mishri Bai and ors.

Advocate R.K. Goyal, Adv.

Respondent

Munna and ors.

Advocate Akhilesh Gupta and ;Amit Bansal, Advs.

Legal References

Reported In: 2006ACJ1653

Excerpt

- section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a very wide connotation. as the definition clause lays down an inclusive facet, the term manufacture has to be construed in a natural and plain manner and would include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. keeping in view the context in which the term manufacture has been used, it would take in its fold incidental and ancillary process in the manufacture or finishing of any manufactured product. it does not leave any room for doubt that an allied process should be integral and inextricable part of manufacture of completeness and presentability of the manufactured product. section 65(76b) of finance act used the words but it does not include. thus it is a definition which has the inclusive as well as exclusive facet. by virtue of the same it may include certain things and exclude others. it is well settled principle of law that a definition is not to be read in isolation and has to read in context of phrase which it defines, releasing that function of a definition is to give precision and certainty to the word or phrase which would otherwise be vague and uncertain. regard being had to the exclusionary fact in the finance act, though a limited one it would exclude the manufacturing process as defined under section 2(f) of the 1944 act. keeping in view the aforesaid dictionary clauses and circulars issued by the c.b.e.c. it is quite luminescent that would manufacture has to be understood in a broader sense and not to be confined or restricted to the excisable product in the act. it would include all processes which amount to manufacture..........at gwalior. panchnama of dead body was prepared which has been signed by devendra giri, son of deceased. in the panchnama of dead body, it is specifically mentioned that accident had taken place due to fall while alighting from the terrace. the fact mentioned in the f.i.r. and the claim petition are contradictory in nature. it is mentioned in the claim petition that the deceased was standing on the footpath when accident occurred whereas in the f.i.r., exh. p2, it is mentioned that deceased was travelling on the roof of matador and he fell from matador and died. thus the fact remains that in the f.i.r. and complaint there is no conflicting statement and this fact is established that deceased has suffered injury due to the use of the said motor vehicle. if it is accepted that deceased was travelling in matador and sitting on the roof of matador then also he died in the accident in the use of the said motor vehicle. as such, finding of claims tribunal that no accident took place is set aside and it is held that prem giri suffered injuries and died during the use of the said motor vehicle which resulted into his death.4. now, the question remains regarding quantum of compensation. deceased was an employee in the health department. claimants have produced salary certificate, exh. p9. as per exh. p9, income of deceased was rs. 3,962 (rupees three thousand nine hundred and sixty-two). thus his yearly income was rs. 47,520 (rupees forty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty). deceased had left behind his widow and children. therefore, it can be safely presumed that deceased was spending 1/3rd of his income upon himself and remaining income was spent on the members of his family. thus, annual dependency is determined at rs. 31,680 (rupees thirty-one thousand six hundred eighty). deceased was 45 years of age. therefore, multiplier of 13 will be applicable in this case. on applying multiplier of 13, compensation is determined at rs. 4,11,840 (rupees four lakh eleven.....

Full Judgment

S.S. Jha and P.K. Jaiswal, JJ.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimants for compensation. Claim petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed by the trial court.

2. Deceased Prem Giri aged about 45 years was an employee in the Health Department and was earning around Rs. 4,000 (rupees four thousand only) per month. On 28.11.1.996, deceased was standing on the footpath at A.B. Road, village Budhadogar when a Matador bearing registration No. MP 07-4995 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against Prem Giri which caused serious injuries in the head and body which resulted in his death. Respondents denied the factum of accident.

3. Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence, dismissed the claim holding therein that accident has not taken place. Trial court has considered the evidence on record and held in para 10 of the award that no F.I.R. about the incident was lodged either by eyewitness Ashok Kumar Jain or Devendra Giri, son of deceased. F.I.R. was lodged 22 days after the incident and it appears that F.I.R. was lodged after death of Prem Giri in the hospital at Gwalior. Panchnama of dead body was prepared which has been signed by Devendra Giri, son of deceased. In the panchnama of dead body, it is specifically mentioned that accident had taken place due to fall while alighting from the terrace. The fact mentioned in the F.I.R. and the claim petition are contradictory in nature. It is mentioned in the claim petition that the deceased was standing on the footpath when accident occurred whereas in the F.I.R., Exh. P2, it is mentioned that deceased was travelling on the roof of Matador and he fell from Matador and died. Thus the fact remains that in the F.I.R. and complaint there is no conflicting statement and this fact is established that deceased has suffered injury due to the use of the said motor vehicle. If it is accepted that deceased was travelling in Matador and sitting on the roof of Matador then also he died in the accident in the use of the said motor vehicle. As such, finding of Claims Tribunal that no accident took place is set aside and it is held that Prem Giri suffered injuries and died during the use of the said motor vehicle which resulted into his death.

4. Now, the question remains regarding quantum of compensation. Deceased was an employee in the Health Department. Claimants have produced salary certificate, Exh. P9. As per Exh. P9, income of deceased was Rs. 3,962 (rupees three thousand nine hundred and sixty-two). Thus his yearly income was Rs. 47,520 (rupees forty-seven thousand five hundred and twenty). Deceased had left behind his widow and children. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that deceased was spending 1/3rd of his income upon himself and remaining income was spent on the members of his family. Thus, annual dependency is determined at Rs. 31,680 (rupees thirty-one thousand six hundred eighty). Deceased was 45 years of age. Therefore, multiplier of 13 will be applicable in this case. On applying multiplier of 13, compensation is determined at Rs. 4,11,840 (rupees four lakh eleven thousand eight hundred forty). Appellant will also be entitled for damages under various heads such as loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, etc., for a sum of Rs. 18,160 (rupees eighteen thousand one hundred and sixty). Total compensation is determined at Rs. 4,30,000 (rupees four lakh thirty thousand only). Claimants will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of this appeal.

5. Appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Mishri Bai and ors. vs Munna and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.S. Jha and ;P.K. Jaiswal, JJ.

Motor Vehicles