Krishan Kumar Dubey Vs. Tularam and ors.

Krishan Kumar Dubey vs Tularam and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 08, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511137

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/511137
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Arun Mishra and ;A.P. Shrivastava, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 08, 2005
Case Number: M.A. No. 688 of 2000
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
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 304A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishan Kumar Dubey

Advocate Anil Dwivedi, Adv.

Respondent

Tularam and ors.

Advocate Pulok Rai, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 304A
Reported In: IV(2006)ACC891; 2006ACJ2178

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..........by the award dated 23.12.1999 passed by additional motor accidents claims tribunal, sohagpur, in motor claim case no. 4 of 1990, the appellant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of motor vehicles act, 1988.2. facts of case are that on 22.12.1989, the deceased shakuntala dubey who was teacher at naveen convent school, sohagpur, at about 4 p.m. was returning to home from the school. when she reached near sohagpur, jeep no. mkk 2763 which belongs to respondent no. 2 and driven by respondent no. 3 dashed against her which resulted injuries on her person and she died on the spot. the appellant is husband of deceased shakuntala bai. a criminal case under section 304a, indian penal code was also registered against the respondent no. 3 before the judicial magistrate, first class, sohagpur. apart from the salary she earned rs. 1,500 per month from tuition. the appellant demanded rs. 10,50,000 as compensation before the tribunal.3. respondent no. 2 denied that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and real owner is narendra sharma. the vehicle has been sold on 5.4.1989 to narendra sharma but as the full amount was not paid, therefore, insurance company was not informed accordingly. respondent no. 3 also denied that he was driving the vehicle on the date of incident. in spite of notice, respondent no. 1 did not file any reply in the tribunal.4. the tribunal awarded rs. 1,30,000. against the above order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.5. in this appeal, the appellant has challenged only the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. the claimant has claimed rs. 10,50,000 as compensation but the tribunal awarded compensation of rs. 1,30,000. there is no cross-appeal presented by respondents against finding of their liability. therefore, the only finding for consideration before us is whether compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable.6. the claimant is the husband of the deceased shakuntala.....

Full Judgment

A.P. Shrivastava, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 23.12.1999 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sohagpur, in Motor Claim Case No. 4 of 1990, the appellant preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Facts of case are that on 22.12.1989, the deceased Shakuntala Dubey who was teacher at Naveen Convent School, Sohagpur, at about 4 p.m. was returning to home from the school. When she reached near Sohagpur, jeep No. MKK 2763 which belongs to respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 3 dashed against her which resulted injuries on her person and she died on the spot. The appellant is husband of deceased Shakuntala Bai. A criminal case under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code was also registered against the respondent No. 3 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sohagpur. Apart from the salary she earned Rs. 1,500 per month from tuition. The appellant demanded Rs. 10,50,000 as compensation before the Tribunal.

3. Respondent No. 2 denied that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and real owner is Narendra Sharma. The vehicle has been sold on 5.4.1989 to Narendra Sharma but as the full amount was not paid, therefore, insurance company was not informed accordingly. Respondent No. 3 also denied that he was driving the vehicle on the date of incident. In spite of notice, respondent No. 1 did not file any reply in the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,30,000. Against the above order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

5. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant has claimed Rs. 10,50,000 as compensation but the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,30,000. There is no cross-appeal presented by respondents against finding of their liability. Therefore, the only finding for consideration before us is whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

6. The claimant is the husband of the deceased Shakuntala Bai. Her age at the time of accident was 42 years. The age of claimant is also 42 years. Krishan Kumar, AW 1, has deposed that the deceased was a teacher in the primary school and her salary was Rs. 1,000 per month. It is also submitted that in addition to salary, she earned Rs. 1,500 per month from tuition. There is no supporting evidence adduced about the income of the salary and tuition. Therefore, we assess income of deceased at Rs. 1,000 from salary and Rs. 500 from tuition, that means, the total income would be Rs. 1,500 per month. After deduction of 1/3rd amount the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 1,000 and annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 12,000. Looking to the age of claimant a multiplier of 15 is applicable as per Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, after multiplier of 15 being applied the loss of dependency ' 7. Consequently the appeal is allowed comes to Rs. 12,000 x 15 = Rs. 1,80,000 to the extent mentioned above. It is also plus Rs. 2,000 for funeral, Rs. 2,500 for directed that the claimant shall be entitled loss to estate, Rs. 5,000 for loss of expect to compensation of Rs. 1,94,500 from the ancy of life and Rs. 5,000 for loss of correspondents jointly and severally. The rate sortium to husband. Therefore, the total of interest is 6 per cent from the date of amount awarded is Rs. 1,94,500. The rate application till payment. No order as to of interest as awarded by the Tribunal is costs. reduced from 12 per cent to 6 per cent from date of filing petition till realization.

7. Consequently the appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above. It is also directed that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,94,500 from the respondents jointly and severally. The rate of interest is 6 per cent from the date of application till payment.

8. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Krishan Kumar Dubey vs Tularam and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Arun Mishra and ;A.P. Shrivastava, JJ. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 173; Indian Penal Code (I...

Motor Vehicles