Basu Vs. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr.

Basu vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 28, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511448

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/511448
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.K. Mody, J.
Decided On: Sep 28, 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

Basu

Respondent

Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya
Reported In: I(2006)ACC572; 2007ACJ129

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.....n.k. mody, j.1. being aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.1998 passed by third motor accidents claims tribunal, khargone in claim case no. 6 of 1998, whereby the claim petition has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.2. short facts of the case are that on 25.2.1979, an accident took place by bus bearing no. mpc 7658 which was owned by respondent no. 2. a number of claim petitions were filed on account of the same accident which were disposed of vide award dated 24.9.1979 passed in claim case no. 61 of 1979, whereby award was passed in favour of 5 injured persons and 24 dependants of those who died in accident. the present claim petition has been filed on 23.7.1996 by the appellant wherein it was alleged that her date of birth is 28.7.1978 and at the time of accident, she was of 6 months. the claim petition has been dismissed by learned tribunal on the ground that there is a delay of more than 15 years. this appeal has come up for hearing after 8 years. unfortunately, there is nobody to press the appeal.3. mr. s.h. karanjawala, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that claim petition was filed after lapse of 15 years, therefore, learned court below has rightly dismissed the claim petition.4. undisputedly the accident took place on 25.2.1979 and award has been passed in favour of number of persons, as is evident from the impugned award. the list of persons who died in the accident was filed in claim case no. 61 of 1979 in which the name of the father of the appellant has also been shown. since the appellant was of the age of six months at the time of accident, therefore, it was not expected from the appellant to file the claim petition. she has filed the claim petition immediately after attaining the age of majority. section 166(3) of the motor vehicles act provides the limitation for 6 months for filing the claim petition.5. whether a claim case which ought to have been filed within limitation prescribed under section 166(3) of the motor.....

Full Judgment

N.K. Mody, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.2.1998 passed by Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khargone in Claim Case No. 6 of 1998, whereby the claim petition has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that on 25.2.1979, an accident took place by bus bearing No. MPC 7658 which was owned by respondent No. 2. A number of claim petitions were filed on account of the same accident which were disposed of vide award dated 24.9.1979 passed in Claim Case No. 61 of 1979, whereby award was passed in favour of 5 injured persons and 24 dependants of those who died in accident. The present claim petition has been filed on 23.7.1996 by the appellant wherein it was alleged that her date of birth is 28.7.1978 and at the time of accident, she was of 6 months. The claim petition has been dismissed by learned Tribunal on the ground that there is a delay of more than 15 years. This appeal has come up for hearing after 8 years. Unfortunately, there is nobody to press the appeal.

3. Mr. S.H. Karanjawala, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that claim petition was filed after lapse of 15 years, therefore, learned court below has rightly dismissed the claim petition.

4. Undisputedly the accident took place on 25.2.1979 and award has been passed in favour of number of persons, as is evident from the impugned award. The list of persons who died in the accident was filed in Claim Case No. 61 of 1979 in which the name of the father of the appellant has also been shown. Since the appellant was of the age of six months at the time of accident, therefore, it was not expected from the appellant to file the claim petition. She has filed the claim petition immediately after attaining the age of majority. Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides the limitation for 6 months for filing the claim petition.

5. Whether a claim case which ought to have been filed within limitation prescribed under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act will be treated as barred by law of limitation or not has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, : AIR 1996 SC2155 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the effect of deletion of Sub-section (3) from Section 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose, an accident had taken place two years before 14.11.1994 when Sub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166. For one reason or the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim or the heirs of the victim till 14.11.1994. Can a claim petition be not filed after, 14.11.1994 in respect of such accident? Whether a claim petition filed after 14.11.1994 can be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that period of twelve months which had been prescribed when Sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force having expired the right to prefer the claim petition had been extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 w.e.f. 14.11.1994? According to us, the answer should be in negative. When Sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been omitted, then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on which such accident had taken place. Claim petitions cannot be thrown on the ground that such claim petitions were barred by time when Sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force,

6. In view of this, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The case is remanded back to the court below for disposal on merits. Since the appellant is unrepresented, therefore, learned Tribunal shall issue a fresh notice to both the parties and shall dispose of the case at the earliest preferably within a period of six months. Learned Tribunal shall see that appellant is getting the proper legal assistance.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Basu vs Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge N.K. Mody, J.

Motor Vehicles