Somchandra Vs. Ramdas and ors.

Somchandra vs Ramdas and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 06, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511035

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/511035
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.K. Gangele, J.
Decided On: Apr 06, 2005
Case Number: M.A. No. 488 of 2002
Subject: Motor Vehicles

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Somchandra

Advocate Sanjay Patwa, Adv.

Respondent

Ramdas and ors.

Advocate S.V. Dandwate, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: III(2005)ACC193; IV(2006)ACC212; 2006ACJ1880

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..........disability. however, the learned tribunal did not assess properly the loss of future income of the appellant. appellant was aged 40 and as per second schedule for assessing the loss of income it would be proper to apply multiplier of 15 which is applicable between the age group of 40 and 45 years and if his income is assessed to be at rs. 2,000 per month then his annual income comes to rs. 24,000 and total loss of income comes to rs. 3,60,000 and 30 per cent of above comes to rs. 1,20,000. the claims tribunal has already awarded rs. 20,000 to the appellant on this count. in my opinion, it would be just and proper if the appellant is awarded enhanced compensation of rs. 75,000 on the count of loss of future income.6. on the basis of above discussion the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed to the extent that the appellant will get enhanced compensation of rs. 75,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the tribunal till realization. the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation against the award dated 20.11.2001 passed by the 12th M.A.C.T., Indore,in Claim Case No. 42 of 2000.

2. On 21.12.1997 at around 9 or 10 in the morning the appellant was standing near Collectorate at A.B. Road, Shajapur. He was dashed by truck bearing No. MP 09-D 9955 driven negligently and rashly by the driver. He received serious injuries on his head and eye. He was treated at Shajapur and Indore. Report of the incident was lodged with the police and a criminal case has also been registered against the driver of the truck. Thereafter, he filed the claim application claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000.

3. The learned Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and owner, driver and the insurance company of the truck were liable to pay compensation. Learned Tribunal further held that because there was head injury to the appellant and fracture in parietal bone of the head of the appellant hence there was 30 per cent permanent disability to him and granted total compensation of Rs. 45,000, i.e., Rs. 20,000 for permanent disability, Rs. 20,000 for medical expenses and Rs. 5,000 for pain and suffering.

4. learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded to the appellant was on lower side. learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that the award is according to law.

5. It is clear from the findings of the Tribunal that there was a fracture on the parietal bone of head of the appellant and there was also blood clotting in his right eye and due to the aforesaid injuries he has been suffering from headache and swelling in one eye and he could not work properly on his shop of motor pump. Earlier he was earning Rs. 4,000 per month from the shop. Dr. Ashish Mehta, who is a neurologist, specifically deposed that appellant suffered head injury and sustained 30 per cent permanent disability. However, the learned Tribunal did not assess properly the loss of future income of the appellant. Appellant was aged 40 and as per Second Schedule for assessing the loss of income it would be proper to apply multiplier of 15 which is applicable between the age group of 40 and 45 years and if his income is assessed to be at Rs. 2,000 per month then his annual income comes to Rs. 24,000 and total loss of income comes to Rs. 3,60,000 and 30 per cent of above comes to Rs. 1,20,000. The Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 20,000 to the appellant on this count. In my opinion, it would be just and proper if the appellant is awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,000 on the count of loss of future income.

6. On the basis of above discussion the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed to the extent that the appellant will get enhanced compensation of Rs. 75,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till realization. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no Order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Somchandra vs Ramdas and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.K. Gangele, J.

Motor Vehicles