Narendra Kumar Dohre Vs. Mukesh and ors.

Narendra Kumar Dohre vs Mukesh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 21, 2000

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511372

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/511372
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: R.B. Dixit, J.
Decided On: Dec 21, 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

Narendra Kumar Dohre

Respondent

Mukesh and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Jayshree v. Nathumal and Ors.
Reported In: II(2001)ACC18

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.....orderr.b. dixit, j.1. the facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass : appellant/claimant was travelling in bus no. mp07f 0553 as second driver of the vehicle and at the relevant time, this vehicle was driven by respondent no. 3 suman singh tomar. respondent no. 3 by rash and negligent driving, dashed the vehicle against a truck which caused grievous injuries to appellant. the learned claims tribunal by the impugned award, allowed compensation of rs. 42,000/- against which, present appeal has been filed for enhancement of award to the extent of rs. 95,000/-.2. it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that he completely lost the hearing power because of permanent disability caused due to damage of right ear. however, the learned tribunal erred in not appreciating medical evidence in right perspective. the learned counsel for the respondents has contested the contention on the ground that in claim petition under section 166 of motor vehicles act, what is pleaded in para 10 of the application, is that the appellant sustained injuries in both the hands and legs and also on head and chest. there is no mention of loss of hearing or any damage to the ear, for which, the compensation is claimed. i am of the opinion, that apart from the injuries mentioned in para 10 of the application, it has also been made clear that appellant had received injuries throughout the body, however, in order to ascertain the exact injuries suffered by appellant, it is necessary to go through the evidence on record.3. appellant narendra kumar dohre (d.w.i), has stated that he had completely lost right ear in the incident. he remained hospitalized for five days at gwalior and later on, he got himself admitted at garg nursing home, at gwalior where he had undergone an operation of the ear. he had to spend also rs. 70 to 80,000/- on his treatment. however, no details or bills of treatment amounting to rs. 70 or 80,000/- were.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.B. Dixit, J.

1. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass : Appellant/claimant was travelling in Bus No. MP07F 0553 as second driver of the vehicle and at the relevant time, this vehicle was driven by respondent No. 3 Suman Singh Tomar. Respondent No. 3 by rash and negligent driving, dashed the vehicle against a truck which caused grievous injuries to appellant. The learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned award, allowed compensation of Rs. 42,000/- against which, present appeal has been filed for enhancement of award to the extent of Rs. 95,000/-.

2. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that he completely lost the hearing power because of permanent disability caused due to damage of right ear. However, the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating medical evidence in right perspective. The learned Counsel for the respondents has contested the contention on the ground that in claim petition Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, what is pleaded in para 10 of the application, is that the appellant sustained injuries in both the hands and legs and also on head and chest. There is no mention of loss of hearing or any damage to the ear, for which, the compensation is claimed. I am of the opinion, that apart from the injuries mentioned in para 10 of the application, it has also been made clear that appellant had received injuries throughout the body, however, in order to ascertain the exact injuries suffered by appellant, it is necessary to go through the evidence on record.

3. Appellant Narendra Kumar Dohre (D.W.I), has stated that he had completely lost right ear in the incident. He remained hospitalized for five days at Gwalior and later on, he got himself admitted at Garg Nursing Home, at Gwalior where he had undergone an operation of the ear. He had to spend also Rs. 70 to 80,000/- on his treatment. However, no details or bills of treatment amounting to Rs. 70 or 80,000/- were produced before the Tribunal. He has only paid Rs. 3,000/- for the operation and the bills of Rs. 3 or 4,000/- were produced. The learned Trial Court has held that appellant has deliberately avoided treatment at the Government Hospital and got himself admitted in a private Nursing Home.

4. In Medical examination of the injuries (Ex. P/11), avulsion of right ear was found and the appellant was referred to E.N.T. specialist for further opinion. X-ray was also advised. In medical certificate of Dr. Suresh Chandra Bandil, Morena (Ex. P/31) dated 12.1.1997, issued after a year from the incident, it has been opined that the injuries which the appellant had suffered by reason of accident, involved, permanent loss of right external ear which leads to permanent disfiguration of his face. He is also suffering with whipless injury cervical spine leading to cervical spondylosis and there is painful movement of cervical spine. However, it has been argued for the respondents that no doctor was examined in evidence to prove permanent disability on account of injuries mentioned in aforesaid medical certificate.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the injury certificate is required to be submitted in form MPMVR 76 (COMP-B) as envisaged under Rule 220(3)(i) of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. Since aforesaid medical certificate (Ex. P/31) has not been submitted in accordance with the Rule 220 referred hereinabove and further since no doctor has been examined in respect of the aforesaid medical certificate, it is not proved that the injury has caused permanent disability to the appellant.

6. In the case of Ramdulare v. Divisional Manager, MPSRTC reported in 1999 (2) MPWN 82, medical certificates produced after about four years, were not relied upon for holding that the claimant had suffered permanent disability.

7. In Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jumman Khan v. Sunil Kumar reported in 1998 (2) MPWN 11, permanent disability was not proved by examining any doctor, it was held that permanent disability could neither be proved nor could be presumed in such a situation.

8. In another Division Bench decision of this Court, in the case of Lalita Bai v. Amin Khan reported in 2000 (2) TAC 506, also, claimant neither proved suffering of permanent disability nor examined doctor who treated him. It was held that the finding of Tribunal cannot be treated to be erroneous.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Miss Suchitra Das v. Biswanath Sahu and Anr. reported in 2000 (2) TAC 401, wherein a 9 years injured girl sustained fracture of occipital bone and ear bone, causing 90% of hearing power, was allowed compensation up to two lacs.

10. In a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jayshree v. Nathumal and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) TAC 520, injured girl aged about 14 years suffered permanent disability including disfiguration of head and face to the extent of 21.9%, was allowed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, I am of the opinion that in the present case, the appellant had failed to prove permanent disability by producing medical evidence. In the circumstances, ratio of decisions in case of Jumman Khan and Lalita Bai (supra), stands squarely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The amount of compensation of Rs. 42,000/- is, therefore, as assessed by the learned Tribunal, needs no enhancement in facts and circumstances of this case and evidence as brought on record.

Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Narendra Kumar Dohre vs Mukesh and ors. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge R.B. Dixit, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles