Raju Vs. Rajender and ors.

Raju vs Rajender and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 14, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511379

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/511379
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.K. Mody, J.
Decided On: Mar 14, 2008
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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raju

Respondent

Rajender and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2009ACJ2060

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..........awarded by the learned tribunal is on lower side. it is also submitted that criminal case was registered against the respondent no. 1. it is submitted that the appellant examined himself and also one eyewitness. learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred because of contributory negligence. it is prayed that the amount be enhanced and the findings regarding contributory negligence be set aside.5. learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant amount awarded by the learned tribunal is just and proper. so far as findings of learned tribunal relating to contributory negligence is concerned, the learned counsel submits that appellant himself was in a drunken condition, which is evident from exh. p4. it is further submitted that respondent no. 1, who was the driver has examined himself and after due appreciation of evidence learned tribunal has held that because of contributory negligence the accident occurred, which requires no interference.6. from perusal of the record it is evident that in mlc, which is exh. p4, it is mentioned that appellant is alcoholic but it is not mentioned in exh. p4 that at the relevant time appellant was in a drunken condition. appellant examined himself and has also examined punjansingh as aw 2, who was eyewitness, who has stated that in what circumstances the accident occurred. in the written statement filed by respondent no. 3, it is nowhere stated that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the appellant. criminal case was also registered against respondent no. 1. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification on the part of learned tribunal in holding that the accident occurred because of contributory negligence. so far as amount of compensation is concerned, it appears that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, amount.....

Full Judgment

N.K. Mody, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 20.4.2007 passed by Fourth Additional M.A.C.T. (Fast Track), Khar-gone, West Nimar in Claim Case No. 26 of 2006, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,25,200 was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the appellant and 50 per cent of the amount was deducted on account of contributory negligence, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 26.5.2005 at about 1.30 p.m., appellant was going on Khargone-Khandwa Road on his motorbike, at that time appellant met with an accident with a bus bearing registration No. MP 46-E 0277, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that appellant sustained compound fracture of femur bone in right leg. It was alleged that the appellant was hospitalised for a period of 16 days, where appellant was operated. There was permanent disability up to the extent of 15 per cent. It was prayed that compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by the respondents. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,200 and deducted 50 per cent of the awarded amount on the ground that appellant was equally liable for the accident, against which the present appeal has been filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,25,200, break-up of which is as under:

Towards future loss ofIncome Rs. 38,200Towards permanentDisability Rs. 25,000Towards loss of income Rs. 3,750Towards pain andSuffering Rs. 5,000Towards medicalExpenses Rs. 51,225Towards expensesincurred on attendants Rs. 2,000

4. Learned Counsel submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. It is also submitted that criminal case was registered against the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the appellant examined himself and also one eyewitness. Learned Counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred because of contributory negligence. It is prayed that the amount be enhanced and the findings regarding contributory negligence be set aside.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. So far as findings of learned Tribunal relating to contributory negligence is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that appellant himself was in a drunken condition, which is evident from Exh. P4. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1, who was the driver has examined himself and after due appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal has held that because of contributory negligence the accident occurred, which requires no interference.

6. From perusal of the record it is evident that in MLC, which is Exh. P4, it is mentioned that appellant is alcoholic but it is not mentioned in Exh. P4 that at the relevant time appellant was in a drunken condition. Appellant examined himself and has also examined Punjansingh as AW 2, who was eyewitness, who has stated that in what circumstances the accident occurred. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3, it is nowhere stated that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the appellant. Criminal case was also registered against respondent No. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred because of contributory negligence. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, it appears that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no further enhancement can be made.

7. In view of this appeal stands allowed in part. The findings regarding the contributory negligence stands set aside. The appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,25,200 as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

8. With the aforesaid observation appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2008 Same Parties Raju vs Rajender and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge N.K. Mody, J.

Motor Vehicles