Deobala and ors. Vs. Padwal Janaji and ors.

Deobala and ors. vs Padwal Janaji and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 09, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511439

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/511439
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Nov 09, 2005
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

Deobala and ors.

Respondent

Padwal Janaji and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: I(2006)ACC50; 2007ACJ111

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..........of the claimants-appellants in part only and awarded a total sum of rs. 6,44,573 in favour of the claimants-appellants against the respondents. feeling the amount of compensation inadequate the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the motor vehicles act for enhancement.3. the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for enhancement in the compensation than what has been awarded by the tribunal and, if so, to what extent? after trial learned tribunal found that the income of the deceased was rs. 69,600 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd amount for his personal expenditure it assessed the dependency of the appellants at rs. 46,400 per annum. this finding of the learned tribunal cannot be disturbed and deserves to be affirmed as the same is quite reasonable, just and is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. however, the learned tribunal has assessed loss of dependency at rs. 6,03,200, after applying multiplier of 13. the multiplier of 13, as selected by the tribunal, appears to be on lower side.4. the age of the deceased has been found to be 42 years. according to the second schedule to section 163a of the motor vehicles act the multiplier for the age group between 40 and 45 years is 15. therefore, the proper multiplier which should have been applied is 15 instead of 13. the deceased was a married person and appellant nos. 2 and 3 are his minor sons while appellant no. 1 is his widow and appellant no. 4 is his mother. in such a situation the age of the deceased only should have been considered for selecting the proper multiplier. according to the age group of the deceased the proper multiplier to be applied is 15 and on applying this multiplier the loss of dependency comes to rs. 6,96,000, which is the compensation awardable under the head loss of dependency. adding to this rs. 41,373 already awarded by the learned tribunal towards other heads like expenses on treatment.....

Full Judgment

Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed by the appellants-claimants for enhancement of the sum awarded to them vide award dated 23.8.2001, passed by the learned Third Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas (MP) in Claim Case No. 121 of 1998.

2. The deceased Amarsingh, who was working in Sri Ummed Higher Secondary School, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) had visited Dewas. On 10.6.1998, at about 4.30 p.m., after having 'darshan of Deviji' while he was returning back, a Maruti car bearing registration No. MP 09-HA 2021, owned by respondent No. 2 and driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 dashed against him and deceased Amarsingh sustained severe injuries. At the relevant point of time the said car was insured with the respondent No. 3. The deceased was taken to District Hospital, Dewas and then was referred to Indore for further treatment. At Indore, during his treatment at Gokuldas Hospital, on 15.6.1998, he passed away. The legal representatives of the deceased preferred a claim petition for awarding them a total sum of Rs. 24,71,000 as compensation for the loss caused to them due to the death of the deceased Amarsingh, claiming themselves to be dependants of the deceased. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has accepted the claim of the claimants-appellants in part only and awarded a total sum of Rs. 6,44,573 in favour of the claimants-appellants against the respondents. Feeling the amount of compensation inadequate the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement.

3. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any case is made out for enhancement in the compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal and, if so, to what extent? After trial learned Tribunal found that the income of the deceased was Rs. 69,600 per annum and after deducting 1/3rd amount for his personal expenditure it assessed the dependency of the appellants at Rs. 46,400 per annum. This finding of the learned Tribunal cannot be disturbed and deserves to be affirmed as the same is quite reasonable, just and is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed loss of dependency at Rs. 6,03,200, after applying multiplier of 13. The multiplier of 13, as selected by the Tribunal, appears to be on lower side.

4. The age of the deceased has been found to be 42 years. According to the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act the multiplier for the age group between 40 and 45 years is 15. Therefore, the proper multiplier which should have been applied is 15 instead of 13. The deceased was a married person and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are his minor sons while appellant No. 1 is his widow and appellant No. 4 is his mother. In such a situation the age of the deceased only should have been considered for selecting the proper multiplier. According to the age group of the deceased the proper multiplier to be applied is 15 and on applying this multiplier the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 6,96,000, which is the compensation awardable under the head loss of dependency. Adding to this Rs. 41,373 already awarded by the learned Tribunal towards other heads like expenses on treatment of the deceased, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, etc., the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 7,37,373.

5. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The award of Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and it is enhanced from Rs. 6,44,573 to Rs. 7,37,373. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The enhanced amount shall be distributed equally amongst the appellants in the manner directed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. Costs of appellants throughout shall be borne by respondents. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,500, if certified.

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

Motor Vehicles