Rafique and anr. Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr.

Rafique and anr. vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 13, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511360

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/511360
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Bhawani Singh, C.J. and; S.L. Jain, J.
Decided On: Aug 13, 2005
Case Number: M.A. No. 1235 of 1999
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
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 338

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rafique and anr.

Advocate Neelam Goel, Adv.

Respondent

Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 338
Reported In: IV(2005)ACC687; 2006ACJ2604

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..........no. 2, dashed against the car with great impact that the car went off the road into field. shaif ali alias shafique died on the spot, while passengers sustained injuries. f.i.r. was lodged at police station, suatala and case was registered under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304a of indian penal code against respondent no. 2, gaffoor (driver of m.p. state road transport corporation bus).3. the claimants submit that deceased was earning rs. 4,000 per month by driving the car and being mechanic of the car. he was young and healthy, therefore, he was earning this amount and could earn more in the later years. compensation of rs. 20,58,000 is claimed.4. respondents submit that deceased shaif ali alias shafique was driving the car rashly and negligently. the accident took place while saving bullock-cart and brought the bus to halt and the car dashed against it.5. the claims tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged. the deceased shaif ali alias shafique died in this accident. therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of rs. 1,22,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.6. through this appeal, award has been challenged by claimants. they seek more compensation alleging that the claims tribunal has not awarded just compensation after taking into consideration income of deceased, his age and multiplier applicable in this case. with regard to accident, there can be no dispute since evidence clearly suggests that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, otherwise accident would not have taken place. suggestion that bus was halted for avoiding the accident and the car hit the stationary bus, cannot be accepted, in view of clear evidence pointing out his actionable conduct for causing the accident.7. the next question is whether just compensation has been paid to claimants for the death of the deceased. we are not satisfied with the finding of the claims tribunal on this question for the reason.....

Full Judgment

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar, in Claim Case No. 35 of 1997, dated 31.3.1999.

2. Claimants are father and brother of the deceased Mohd. Shaif Ali alias Shafique. Deceased was car mechanic-cum-car driver. Accident took place on 18.6.1997 when he was going from Mawai to Piparia at 6 a.m. in the car after collecting passengers. When he reached Rajmarg Chouraha, Sagar Road, at 11 a.m., M.P. State Road Transport Corporation bus bearing No. MP 09-D 0398, driven rashly and negligently by the driver Gaffoor, respondent No. 2, dashed against the car with great impact that the car went off the road into field. Shaif Ali alias Shafique died on the spot, while passengers sustained injuries. F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Suatala and case was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 2, Gaffoor (driver of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation bus).

3. The claimants submit that deceased was earning Rs. 4,000 per month by driving the car and being mechanic of the car. He was young and healthy, therefore, he was earning this amount and could earn more in the later years. Compensation of Rs. 20,58,000 is claimed.

4. Respondents submit that deceased Shaif Ali alias Shafique was driving the car rashly and negligently. The accident took place while saving bullock-cart and brought the bus to halt and the car dashed against it.

5. The Claims Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident took place as alleged. The deceased Shaif Ali alias Shafique died in this accident. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,22,000 carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

6. Through this appeal, award has been challenged by claimants. They seek more compensation alleging that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just compensation after taking into consideration income of deceased, his age and multiplier applicable in this case. With regard to accident, there can be no dispute since evidence clearly suggests that the bus driver was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, otherwise accident would not have taken place. Suggestion that bus was halted for avoiding the accident and the car hit the stationary bus, cannot be accepted, in view of clear evidence pointing out his actionable conduct for causing the accident.

7. The next question is whether just compensation has been paid to claimants for the death of the deceased. We are not satisfied with the finding of the Claims Tribunal on this question for the reason that the Claims Tribunal has not calculated the compensation after taking into consideration exact income of the deceased, his age and the multiplier. From the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was driver and mechanic of car. He was using this car for carrying passengers and earning Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 4,000 per month. Of course, he was not maintaining workshop for car repairs, he was using the car as a taxi, it can be taken that he may be earning Rs. 100 a day and Rs. 3,000 per month. Out of it, he must be spending 1/3rd on himself and leaving 2/3rd for family to survive. At this stage, the proper multiplier is 17. Therefore, we award compensation of (Rs. 2,000 x 12 x 17) Rs. 4,08,000 to the claimants. That apart, claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate and Rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses. Therefore, claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,22,500. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Rafique and anr. vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corpo... Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Bhawani Singh, C.J. and; S.L. Jain, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A, 337 and 338

Motor Vehicles