Omwati Sharma and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Omwati Sharma and ors. vs Ashok Kumar and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 29, 1996

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511309

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/511309
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.K. Dubey and ;Shambhoo Singh, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 29, 1996
Case Number: M.A. Nos. 714 and 825 of 1995
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

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 dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Omwati Sharma and ors.

Advocate R.N. Singh and ;Prashant Singh, Advs.

Respondent

Ashok Kumar and ors.

Advocate R.K. Thakur, Adv.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas
Reported In: 1996ACJ968

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..........for the appellants-claimants and mr. r.k. thakur for the appellant insurance company heard.5. it is settled that the insurance company cannot challenge the award and findings of rash and negligent driving and quantum except on the grounds under section 149 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, which is not the case here; hence the appeal filed by the insurance company has no merit and has to be dismissed.6. coming to the appeal of the claimants, though the tribunal has applied sound and logical method of multiplier, however, determination of dependency at rs. 2,000/- is on the lower side looking to the number of dependants; the deceased could not have spent on himself an amount of rs. 2,000/-; hence out of rs. 4,000/-1/3rd deduction on personal living expenses of the deceased would have been proper whereby the monthly dependency would come to rs. 2,600/-, yearly dependency would come to rs. 31,200/-; by applying the multiplier of 8 the amount of compensation would come to rs. 2,49,600/-. in the head of consortium a conventional figure of rs. 10,000/- is proper for which the widow is entitled. the total compensation, to which the claimants would be entitled, would be rs. 2,59,600/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. the insurance company shall deposit the said amount within a period of 2 months, of course, after giving due adjustment of the amount already deposited with its proportionate interest. on deposit the tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the supreme court in general manager, kerala state road trans. corporation v. susamma thomas 1994 acj 1 (sc).7. in the result the appeal of the insurance company fails and is hereby dismissed. the appeal of the claimants is allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation. as a consequence of that the award passed by the tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. the insurance company shall also.....

Full Judgment

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. The appellants-claimants have filed Misc. Appeal No. 825 of 1995 for enhancement of the compensation awarded vide award dated 29.4.1995 in Claim Case No. 56 of 1991, passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna. Misc. Appeal No. 714 of 1995 has been filed by the insurance company aggrieved of the said award.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are thus:

One Moolchand Sharma aged about 53 years who was employed in the Public Works Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh while going on scooter was hit by tanker bearing No. MIA 9581 driven by respondent No. 2, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 3 in M.A. No. 825 of 1995, as a result of which he died instantaneously. The claimants are the widow of the deceased aged 48 years, 4 daughters aged 29 years, 27 years, 21 years and 19 years; and 4 sons aged 31 years, 25 years, 23 years and one Deepak Kumar. Out of the sons Pramod Kumar aged 31 is married while two daughters Nirmala and Pramila aged 29 and 27 years are also married, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,51,000/- for the death of Moolchand Sharma.

3. Respondents contested the claim. The Tribunal on the evidence adduced by the parties recorded a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker. At the time of his death, deceased was getting Rs. 4,000/- (Sic. per month. Dependency was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-) per month, yearly Rs. 24,000/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 4 to the multiplicand of Rs. 24,000/- and determined the compensation of Rs. 96,000/- and in the head of consortium and loss of company a.n amount of Rs. 67,000/- was fixed. Thus the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application. Aggrieved of this award the claimants have come up in appeal for enhancement of the compensation while the insurance company has challenged the award. The owner and driver have not filed any appeal.

4. Mr. R.N. Singh and Mr. Prashant Singh for the appellants-claimants and Mr. R.K. Thakur for the appellant insurance company heard.

5. It is settled that the insurance company cannot challenge the award and findings of rash and negligent driving and quantum except on the grounds under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is not the case here; hence the appeal filed by the insurance company has no merit and has to be dismissed.

6. Coming to the appeal of the claimants, though the Tribunal has applied sound and logical method of multiplier, however, determination of dependency at Rs. 2,000/- is on the lower side looking to the number of dependants; the deceased could not have spent on himself an amount of Rs. 2,000/-; hence out of Rs. 4,000/-1/3rd deduction on personal living expenses of the deceased would have been proper whereby the monthly dependency would come to Rs. 2,600/-, yearly dependency would come to Rs. 31,200/-; by applying the multiplier of 8 the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 2,49,600/-. In the head of consortium a conventional figure of Rs. 10,000/- is proper for which the widow is entitled. The total compensation, to which the claimants would be entitled, would be Rs. 2,59,600/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. The insurance company shall deposit the said amount within a period of 2 months, of course, after giving due adjustment of the amount already deposited with its proportionate interest. On deposit the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claimants taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Trans. Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 ACJ 1 (SC).

7. In the result the appeal of the insurance company fails and is hereby dismissed. The appeal of the claimants is allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation. As a consequence of that the award passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. The insurance company shall also bear the costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- if pre-certified.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1996 Same Parties Omwati Sharma and ors. vs Ashok Kumar and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.K. Dubey and ;Shambhoo Singh, JJ.

Motor Vehicles