Minaxi and ors. Vs. Deepesh Kumar and ors.

Minaxi and ors. vs Deepesh Kumar and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 14, 2005

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511430

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/511430
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Sep 14, 2005
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

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 allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Minaxi and ors.

Respondent

Deepesh Kumar and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: I(2006)ACC125; 2007ACJ92

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..........nursing home where he was admitted in icu, but he could not recover and ultimately succumbed to injuries on 13.7.1997. about 27 passengers of the bus sustained grievous injuries in the accident and out of them 3 died.3. alleging the aforesaid facts the legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition, claiming a compensation to the tune of rs. 10,00,000 for the loss suffered by them under different heads, due to the death of deceased govind in the aforesaid accident. the respondents denied the claim of the claimants. however, the learned tribunal, after trying the issues, allowed the claim only in part and awarded a sum of rs. 3,82,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation with the costs of the litigation.4. feeling the quantum of award insufficient the claimants have preferred this appeal against the impugned award under section 173 of the act. the only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to get any more sum as compensation for the death of deceased govind.5. the learned tribunal has found that the income of the deceased was rs. 3,000 p.m. this finding of the tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. there is hardly any ground to interfere with this finding of the learned tribunal. the learned tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd amount which the deceased might have been spending on himself, has assessed the dependency at rs. 24,000 per annum. this assessment of the learned tribunal is also legal and correct. however, learned tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 for ascertaining the financial loss caused to appellants. learned tribunal has mentioned in para 24 of the award that the deceased govind was aged in between 30 and 35 years. according to the schedule under section 163a of the act, for the age group of 30-35 years the multiplier of 17 is prescribed for evaluating compensation for third party in fatal.....

Full Judgment

Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act'), for enhancement of the sum awarded to them vide award dated 19.3.2001, passed by learned First Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar (MP) in Claim Case No. 43 of 2000.

2. On 8.7.1997 the deceased Govind was driving the passenger bus of Aashish Travels, bearing registration No. MP 09-S 1080. The said bus used to ply between Manawar and Indore and at the time of accident it was going towards Indore. The said bus was being driven by deceased Govind as the driver of the bus. He was driving the bus quite cautiously at a controlled speed, observing the relevant traffic rules. In between Marol and Bondwara a mini truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 5634 driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed violently against the aforesaid bus. Due to the accident deceased Govind sustained injuries on head, abdomen and legs. He was taken to Bhoj Hospital, Dhar in the injured condition where he was examined and given treatment and due to severe injuries he was sent to Mittal Nursing Home where he was admitted in ICU, but he could not recover and ultimately succumbed to injuries on 13.7.1997. About 27 passengers of the bus sustained grievous injuries in the accident and out of them 3 died.

3. Alleging the aforesaid facts the legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition, claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 for the loss suffered by them under different heads, due to the death of deceased Govind in the aforesaid accident. The respondents denied the claim of the claimants. However, the learned Tribunal, after trying the issues, allowed the claim only in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,82,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation with the costs of the litigation.

4. Feeling the quantum of award insufficient the claimants have preferred this appeal against the impugned award under Section 173 of the Act. The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to get any more sum as compensation for the death of deceased Govind.

5. The learned Tribunal has found that the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000 p.m. This finding of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. There is hardly any ground to interfere with this finding of the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd amount which the deceased might have been spending on himself, has assessed the dependency at Rs. 24,000 per annum. This assessment of the learned Tribunal is also legal and correct. However, learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier of 14 for ascertaining the financial loss caused to appellants. Learned Tribunal has mentioned in para 24 of the award that the deceased Govind was aged in between 30 and 35 years. According to the Schedule under Section 163A of the Act, for the age group of 30-35 years the multiplier of 17 is prescribed for evaluating compensation for third party in fatal accident. Multiplier prescribed in this Schedule, might be followed in the cases under Section 166 of the Act. In the present case not only the parents and the sister of the deceased, but his widow and the children are also claiming compensation. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the age group of the deceased the proper multiplier to be adopted shall be 17 instead of 14 which has been applied by the learned Tribunal.

6. On multiplying the dependency figure of Rs. 24,000 by 17 the financial loss comes at Rs. 4,08,000. Learned Tribunal has allowed Rs. 20,000 towards medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the deceased. This amount shall also be allowed as compensation payable to appellants. It will also be proper to add a lump sum amount of Rs. 22,000 for taking care of the amount of compensation awardable under different conventional heads, such as funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss to estate, etc. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 4,50,000 will be a just, proper and adequate sum awardable as compensation to the appellants.

7. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified by enhancing the total amount awardable to the appellants from Rs. 3,82,000 to Rs. 4,50,000. As such, now appellants shall be entitled for the total sum of Rs. 4,50,000 from the respondents jointly and severally. The rate of interest in regard to Rs. 3,82,000 awarded by Tribunal remains unaltered. However, the increased sum of Rs. 68,000 would carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The amount of compensation shall be payable to appellants in the same proportion and in the manner as directed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award. The respondents shall also bear the costs of appellants throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Minaxi and ors. vs Deepesh Kumar and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

Motor Vehicles