Nanda and ors. Vs. Chottulal and ors.

Nanda and ors. vs Chottulal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 18, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511112

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/511112
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: R.V. Raveendran, C.J. and ;Shantanu S. Kemkar, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 18, 2005
Case Number: M.A. No. 1530 of 2000
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

Nanda and ors.

Advocate A.K. Tiwari, Adv.

Respondent

Chottulal and ors.

Advocate S.V. Dandwate, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: III(2006)ACC124; 2006ACJ2122

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..........in calculating the loss of dependency and in selecting the multiplier. the salary was rs. 7,100 per month. if a sum of rs. 1,100 is deducted towards the income tax, professional tax and personal out of pocket expenses of the deceased, the net monthly income would have been rs. 6,000. having regard to the fact that the family of the deceased consisted of himself, his wife, minor son and aged parents, it is appropriate to deduct th and not 1/3rd towards the living expenses of the deceased. accordingly the contribution to the family would be rs. 4,500 per month or rs. 54,000 per annum. as deceased was aged 32 years, the applicable multiplier is 17. therefore, the total loss of dependency is rs. 54,000 x 17 = rs. 9,18,000. to this, we add rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, rs. 5,000 for loss to estate and rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses. thus, total compensation is determined at rs. 9,30,000.5. we, accordingly, allow the appeal in part and increase compensation from rs. 5,00,000 to rs. 9,30,000 (rupees nine lakh thirty thousand only). the rate of interest, in regard to rs. 5,00,000 awarded by tribunal, shall remain unaltered. however, the increased sum of rs. 4,30,000 shall carry interest only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till deposit/payment. parties to bear their respective costs.6. the tribunal has apportioned the compensation at 40 per cent for the widow and 20 per cent each for the minor son, mother and father. in the interest of justice, we modify it as 50 per cent for the widow, 20 per cent each for minor son and the mother and 10 per cent for the father. entire amount falling to the share of the minor appellant and 75 per cent of the amount falling to the share of the widow and the mother shall be kept in fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for a term of five years to be renewed for further five years, with liberty to draw interest. the parties to bear respective costs.

Full Judgment

R.V. Raveendran, C.J.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Claim Case No. 18 of 1998.

2. Appellants, who were the claimants in the said claim petition, are respectively the widow, minor son and aged parents of one Santosh Kumar Mithal who died in a motor accident on 20.11.1995 involving vehicle No. CIC 9698. Deepchand, respondent No. 2, is the owner, Chottulal, respondent No. 1, is the driver and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respondent No. 3, is the insurer of the said vehicle. Appellants claimed compensation of Rs. 38,25,300. Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition. Appellants have filed this appeal contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is about the adequacy of compensation.

3. The Claims Tribunal found that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of death and was working as Assistant Lecturer in Government College, Rajgarh and his salary was Rs. 7,100 per month. After making deductions on account of his personal expenditure and living expenses it arrived at the contribution to the family as Rs. 4,200 per month. Thus the dependency was determined as Rs. 50,400 per annum. By applying the multiplier of 10, it arrived at total loss of dependency at Rs. 5,04,000. Rounding off the same, the award was made for Rs. 5,00,000.

4. As rightly contended by appellants, there are errors in calculating the loss of dependency and in selecting the multiplier. The salary was Rs. 7,100 per month. If a sum of Rs. 1,100 is deducted towards the income tax, professional tax and personal out of pocket expenses of the deceased, the net monthly income would have been Rs. 6,000. Having regard to the fact that the family of the deceased consisted of himself, his wife, minor son and aged parents, it is appropriate to deduct th and not 1/3rd towards the living expenses of the deceased. Accordingly the contribution to the family would be Rs. 4,500 per month or Rs. 54,000 per annum. As deceased was aged 32 years, the applicable multiplier is 17. Therefore, the total loss of dependency is Rs. 54,000 x 17 = Rs. 9,18,000. To this, we add Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 5,000 for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses. Thus, total compensation is determined at Rs. 9,30,000.

5. We, accordingly, allow the appeal in part and increase compensation from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 9,30,000 (rupees nine lakh thirty thousand only). The rate of interest, in regard to Rs. 5,00,000 awarded by Tribunal, shall remain unaltered. However, the increased sum of Rs. 4,30,000 shall carry interest only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till deposit/payment. Parties to bear their respective costs.

6. The Tribunal has apportioned the compensation at 40 per cent for the widow and 20 per cent each for the minor son, mother and father. In the interest of justice, we modify it as 50 per cent for the widow, 20 per cent each for minor son and the mother and 10 per cent for the father. Entire amount falling to the share of the minor appellant and 75 per cent of the amount falling to the share of the widow and the mother shall be kept in fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for a term of five years to be renewed for further five years, with liberty to draw interest. The parties to bear respective costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Nanda and ors. vs Chottulal and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge R.V. Raveendran, C.J. and ;Shantanu S. Kemkar, JJ.

Motor Vehicles