Rameshwar Vs. Gukul and ors.

Rameshwar vs Gukul and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 14, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511319

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/511319
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: A.M. Sapre, J.
Decided On: Sep 14, 2000
Subject: Insurance;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: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rameshwar

Advocate Mr. Pankaj Bagadia

Respondent

Gukul and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: I(2001)ACC566

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..........such as nature of accident, negligence of driver of bus and liability of insurance company have become final and are binding on the respondents.6. in my opinion, the award of tribunal under medical head for rs. 10,000/- appears to be on low side and it should have been for rs. 15,000/-. it is impossible for the claimant who is receiving medical treatment to file bills of each and every item. it is simply impractible. the fact that claimant received injuries, that he received extensive medical treatment, and that he actually filed bills for rs. 10,000/- as held by tribunal itself shows the genuineness of his claim towards medical head. in my opinion, as held above, i am inclined to award a total sum of rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses thereby enhancing the award by rs. 5,000/- under this head.7. as regards the award of compensation towards injury and the loss, in my opinion, the tribunal should have awarded a total sum of rs. 25,000/- because the doctor has certified the disability to the extent of 26%. it appears that though claimant led evidence and examined the doctor but the certificate of disability though filed was not exhibited. nevertheless, looking to the nature of injury, its impact and the medical treatment received, and the fact that claimant was engaged in business of milk, he should be awarded a sum of rs. 25,000/- in place of rs. 8,000/-. accordingly, under this head, an enhancement of rs. 17,000/- is awarded.8. accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, impugned award is modified and is enhanced by rs. 17,000/- + rs. 5,000/-: rs. 22,000/-. accordingly the claimant is held entitle for a total compensation of rs. 25,000/- + rs. 15,000/- + rs. 6,000/-: rs. 46,000/-. this awarded sum will carry interest at the same rate as was awarded by the tribunal. no cost.no cost.

Full Judgment

ORDER

A.M. Sapre, J.

1. Claimant is dissatisfied with what is awarded to him by the impugned award. He wants more and hence he is in appeal for enhancement. In all, the learned Member of Tribunal awarded him a total sum of Rs. 24,000/- for the injuries that the claimant has suffered in an accident. The impugned award is dated 28.7.1997, passed by learned IInd M.A.C.T., Dewas, in Claim Case No. 98/97.

2. On 26.10.1994, claimant while going on motorcycle with his brother-in-aw, Babulal, was dashed with the Bus bearing No. CPU 1111 resulting in death of Babulal and sustaining of injuries by the claimant. The offending bus was owned any respondent No. 2 and was being driven by respondent No. 1. It was insured with espondent No. 3. This resulted in filing of claim by the claimant claiming compensation for the injuries. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-party whereas respondent No. 3 alone contested the claim.

3. By impugned award, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part. It allowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 8,000/- towards loss resulted due to injuries, and Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of earning. It was held that accident was the outcome of negligent driving of offending vehicle bus and hence all the three non-applicants (respondents) are jointly and severally liable to pay for the award rendered. And hence this appeal for enhancement.

4. Heard Mr. Pankaj Bagadia, learned Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents inspite of SPC issued.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, in my opinion a case for enhancement to some extent is made out. Since there is no cross-appeal or cross-objection by any of the respondents and hence other issues such as nature of accident, negligence of driver of bus and liability of Insurance Company have become final and are binding on the respondents.

6. In my opinion, the award of Tribunal under medical head for Rs. 10,000/- appears to be on low side and it should have been for Rs. 15,000/-. It is impossible for the claimant who is receiving medical treatment to file bills of each and every item. It is simply impractible. The fact that claimant received injuries, that he received extensive medical treatment, and that he actually filed bills for Rs. 10,000/- as held by Tribunal itself shows the genuineness of his claim towards medical head. In my opinion, as held above, I am inclined to award a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses thereby enhancing the award by Rs. 5,000/- under this head.

7. As regards the award of compensation towards injury and the loss, in my opinion, the Tribunal should have awarded a total sum of Rs. 25,000/- because the doctor has certified the disability to the extent of 26%. It appears that though claimant led evidence and examined the doctor but the certificate of disability though filed was not exhibited. Nevertheless, looking to the nature of injury, its impact and the medical treatment received, and the fact that claimant was engaged in business of milk, he should be awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in place of Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly, under this head, an enhancement of Rs. 17,000/- is awarded.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, impugned award is modified and is enhanced by Rs. 17,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-: Rs. 22,000/-. Accordingly the claimant is held entitle for a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 6,000/-: Rs. 46,000/-. This awarded sum will carry interest at the same rate as was awarded by the Tribunal. No cost.

No cost.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Rameshwar vs Gukul and ors. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge A.M. Sapre, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles