Bhudevi and ors. Vs. Ramjilal Goyal and ors.

Bhudevi and ors. vs Ramjilal Goyal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 16, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511441

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/511441
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Arun Mishra and ;Sheela Khanna, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 16, 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

Bhudevi and ors.

Respondent

Ramjilal Goyal and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2009ACJ2422

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..........service was required to be verified, after pay fixation deceased would have drawn the salary at rs. 10,800. nothing has been placed on record by claimants to indicate that service was rendered by the deceased as on the date on which pay fixation was due on 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990, may be that on 1.1.1996 deceased was in the service. considering his age to be 42 years, in the facts and circumstances of the case we take the salary of the deceased at rs. 8,000 per month. in our opinion, the claims tribunal has erred in taking the basic salary at rs. 5,000 per month and in making further deduction of the amount of pensionary benefits received by the family, the said amount could not have been deducted, thus inadequate compensation has been worked out by the claims tribunal. taking the income at rs. 8,000 per month, annual income comes to rs. 96,000, after making one-third deduction towards self expenditure which the deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, annual loss of dependency comes to rs. 64,000, age of deceased was 42 years, multiplier of 15 is applicable, as claimants include widow and minor children, same is applied, thus compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to rs. 64,000 x 15 = rs. 9,60,000. in addition claimants are entitled for further sum of rs. 40,000 for funeral expenses, loss to estate and loss of expectancy of life inclusive of a sum of rs. 10,000 awarded to the widow for loss of consortium. thus total compensation comes to rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakh). the compensation enhanced by this court to carry the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization except for the period excluded by the claims tribunal in the award. let amount be paid in 60 days.6. resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. no costs.

Full Judgment

Arun Mishra, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation aggrieved by award dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Fifth Additional M.A.C.T. (Fast Track Court), Morena in Claim Case No. 64 of 2004 awarded on account of death of Ram Avtar Sharma aged 42 years who was sub-engineer in the Rural Engineering Service Department of State of M.P.

2. The claim application was preferred by the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased claiming compensation of Rs. 33,87,000 along with interest. The deceased was drawing salary of Rs. 7,208 at the time of his death. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,13,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum except for the period 26.9.2005 to 29.9.2006. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal the appeal has been preferred.

3. It is submitted by Mr. B.D. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for appellants that Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000 per month, salary was much more. The Claims Tribunal has further erred in deducting 50 per cent (a sum of Rs. 2,500) received by the claimants on account of pension, such deduction could not have been made thus compensation awarded is inadequate, it be suitably enhanced. Learned Counsel further submitted that future prospects have also not been taken into consideration. There were three pay revisions due on 1.1.1986, 1.1.1990 and 1.1.1996. Had the pay fixation been done, the deceased would have drawn the salary of Rs. 10,800 per month, which should have been taken as salary drawn by the deceased. As the pay fixation has not been done, deceased could not have been held responsible.

4. Mr. B.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondents has submitted that no case of interference in the appeal is made out. The compensation has been worked out in proper manner. Statement of B.K. Sikarwar, CW 1, is based on imagination, no documents have been placed on record so as to satisfy this Court that the deceased was in the employment as on the date on which pay revision had fallen due on 1.1.1986, 1.1.1990 and 1.1.1996.

5. It is not in dispute that deceased was receiving a sum of Rs. 7,208 per month by way of his salary as apparent from salary certificate, Exh. P1 proved by B.K. Sikarwar, CW 1. He has also stated that Ram Avtar Sharma was posted in the office at Sheopur w.e.f. 2001, his basic salary was Rs. 5,000 per month, he was drawing the salary inclusive of D.A. of Rs. 7,208 per month as on 9.8.2003 the date of accident. Witness has further stated that three pay revisions were due w.e.f. 1.1.1986, 1.1.90 and 1.1.1996. However, for that purpose service was required to be verified, after pay fixation deceased would have drawn the salary at Rs. 10,800. Nothing has been placed on record by claimants to indicate that service was rendered by the deceased as on the date on which pay fixation was due on 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990, may be that on 1.1.1996 deceased was in the service. Considering his age to be 42 years, in the facts and circumstances of the case we take the salary of the deceased at Rs. 8,000 per month. In our opinion, the Claims Tribunal has erred in taking the basic salary at Rs. 5,000 per month and in making further deduction of the amount of pensionary benefits received by the family, the said amount could not have been deducted, thus inadequate compensation has been worked out by the Claims Tribunal. Taking the income at Rs. 8,000 per month, annual income comes to Rs. 96,000, after making one-third deduction towards self expenditure which the deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 64,000, age of deceased was 42 years, multiplier of 15 is applicable, as claimants include widow and minor children, same is applied, thus compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 64,000 x 15 = Rs. 9,60,000. In addition claimants are entitled for further sum of Rs. 40,000 for funeral expenses, loss to estate and loss of expectancy of life inclusive of a sum of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the widow for loss of consortium. Thus total compensation comes to Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakh). The compensation enhanced by this Court to carry the interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization except for the period excluded by the Claims Tribunal in the award. Let amount be paid in 60 days.

6. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2008 Same Parties Bhudevi and ors. vs Ramjilal Goyal and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Arun Mishra and ;Sheela Khanna, JJ.

Motor Vehicles