Phool Singh Vs. Pankhi and ors.

Phool Singh vs Pankhi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 01, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511464

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/511464
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;S.S. Kemkar, J.
Decided On: Apr 01, 2003
Case Number: M.A. No. 486 of 1997
Subject: Motor Vehicles;Insurance

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;Insurance
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147(1) and 149(2); Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Phool Singh

Advocate P.K. Jaiswal, Adv.

Respondent

Pankhi and ors.

Advocate Abhishek Arjaria, ;N.S. Ruprah and ;Amrit Ruprah, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147(1) and 149(2); Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994
Cases Referred: Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Reported In: 2004ACJ843; 2003(4)MPLJ28

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..........this award through this appeal. claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.4. mr. p.k. jaiswal submits that claims tribunal has erroneously held the owner responsible for payment of compensation. as a matter of fact, accident was not the result of overloading of vehicle by persons and grain items, therefore, liability to pay compensation should not be thrusted upon the appellant. our attention is drawn to supreme court decision in b.v. nagaraju v. oriental insurance co. ltd., 1996 acj 1178 (sc). another decision on which reliance is placed is nagashetty v. united india insurance co. ltd., 2001 acj 1441 (sc). both the above decisions have been examined. they are not attracted to the peculiar facts of the case. evidence clearly suggests that tractor-trolley was owned by the appellant. it is insured for agriculture which would include carriage of agricultural items to the market also. it does not permit carriage of passengers with goods, this being case under motor vehicles act, 1988 prior to coming into force of act 54 of 1994 from 14.11.1994. therefore, there is prohibition on carriage of passengers with goods. consequently, there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy in this case, as such, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.5. the question is whether claimants have been awarded just compensation in this case. deceased has been found to be 45 years old at the time of accident by claims tribunal. this being finding of fact should not be disturbed unless there is cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary. claimants have tried to demonstrate that the deceased was earning rs. 150-200 per day or rs. 10,000-12,000 per annum or rs. 10-12 per day. however, claims tribunal has rightly said that in such a case his income has to be determined on the basis of minimum wages payable at the relevant time. accordingly, the deceased should be earning rs. 30 per day, rs. 900 per month and.....

Full Judgment

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panna in Claim Case No. 5 of 1994 dated 20.3.1997.

2. Accident took place on 3.1.1993. Tractor-trolley, owned by Phool Singh, driven by Ramlal, met with accident. According to the claimants it happened due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley by the driver. Tractor-trolley was carrying agricultural produce belonging to the owner. It is alleged that trolley tilted and the deceased fell into a ditch and was hit by tyre of the trolley. He died instantaneously. Compensation of Rs. 13,64,000 is claimed since family was dependent on him being the sole bread-earner.

3. Insurance company alleges that the tractor-trolley was being used in violation of insurance policy since it was carrying passengers and goods of other persons. As per insurance policy it could not carry any passenger, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Other respondents said that the occupants of the trolley got into it despite refusal by owner and driver. It is admitted that it was full of grain items. Consequently, they are not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place as alleged. It also found that the deceased died in this accident and the vehicle was insured. It also found that the deceased did not get into the vehicle despite protest by owner and driver. Accordingly, award of Rs. 1,25,000 is made with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Owner of tractor-trolley has challenged this award through this appeal. Claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Mr. P.K. Jaiswal submits that Claims Tribunal has erroneously held the owner responsible for payment of compensation. As a matter of fact, accident was not the result of overloading of vehicle by persons and grain items, therefore, liability to pay compensation should not be thrusted upon the appellant. Our attention is drawn to Supreme Court decision in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC). Another decision on which reliance is placed is Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 1441 (SC). Both the above decisions have been examined. They are not attracted to the peculiar facts of the case. Evidence clearly suggests that tractor-trolley was owned by the appellant. It is insured for agriculture which would include carriage of agricultural items to the market also. It does not permit carriage of passengers with goods, this being case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to coming into force of Act 54 of 1994 from 14.11.1994. Therefore, there is prohibition on carriage of passengers with goods. Consequently, there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy in this case, as such, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

5. The question is whether claimants have been awarded just compensation in this case. Deceased has been found to be 45 years old at the time of accident by Claims Tribunal. This being finding of fact should not be disturbed unless there is cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary. Claimants have tried to demonstrate that the deceased was earning Rs. 150-200 per day or Rs. 10,000-12,000 per annum or Rs. 10-12 per day. However, Claims Tribunal has rightly said that in such a case his income has to be determined on the basis of minimum wages payable at the relevant time. Accordingly, the deceased should be earning Rs. 30 per day, Rs. 900 per month and after deducting 1/3rd as his personal expenditure, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 600 and Rs. 7,200 per annum, applying the multiplier of 15, amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,08,000 plus Rs. 16,500 (Rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium to wife, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses). Claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,24,500 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the enhanced compensation, payable within three months, as under:

(1) Pankhi aliasSunwani (mother) -- 15 per cent(2) Parwati (wife) -- 40 per cent(3) Gauri (daughter) -- 15 per cent(4) Anju (daughter) -- 15 per cent(5) Ghanshyam (son) -- 15 per cent

Shares of minors be invested in F.D.R. with nationalised bank in their names through Parwati (mother) till they attain majority.

6. Accordingly, the award is modified. Appeal and cross-objections disposed of in terms aforesaid. The amount shall be paid by Phool Singh, owner of tractor-trolley, in three months. Costs on parties.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Phool Singh vs Pankhi and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles;Insurance Same Judge Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;S.S. Kemkar, J. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147(1) and 149(2); Motor ...

Motor Vehicles;Insurance