Skip to content


Uma Sharan Vs. Kashi Nath and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Motor Vehicles;Insurance

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Misc. Appeal No. 546 of 2000

Judge

Reported in

2004ACJ1778

Appellant

Uma Sharan

Respondent

Kashi Nath and ors.

Appellant Advocate

H.S. Rajpal, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

P. Gupta and ;S.S. Swami, Advs.

Disposition

Appeal allowed

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..........the claimant suffered three fractures at three places in femur bone and also in right knee. the tibia and fibula of right foot are also fractured apart from left toe. there is fracture of right ulna bone and ring finger of right hand. she has been operated twice, extent of disability is 25 per cent and right leg is shortened by 3/4th of an inch and knee has also developed a bend as a result of which movement has become stiff. all these injuries have been proved by dr. rajat verma (aw 4) who attended the claimant in the hospital at indore. the claimant must have suffered great pain during the treatment. it is stated that treatment continued for six months and rod had been inserted in the femur, to remain there for some time and removable later at the expense of rs. 6,000. the claimant must have spent on treatment, transport, special diet and attendant also. therefore, in this background, it is not difficult to hold that the award of compensation of rs. 80,000 is inadequate. therefore, compensation is enhanced as under:(1) permanent disability rs. 50,000 (2) pain and suffering rs. 50,000 (3) treatment rs. 50,000 (4) transport rs. 10,000(5) attendant rs. 3,600(6) special.....

Judgment:


Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. Through this appeal, award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 295 of 1999 dated 17.12.99 has been challenged.

2. Uma Sharan was travelling along with her family in Matador No. MP 09-S 0339 from Shirdi to Indore on 15.10.1996 at 8 p.m. Matador was being driven by its driver on the proper side of the road but the truck No. MH 16-B 4322 driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit Matador, The allegation is that the accident took place because of negligence of the vehicles involved in the accident. The claimant suffered fractures on various parts of the body in the accident. She was treated by Dr. Rajat Verma, Union Hospital, Dhar Road, Indore and Dr. Gyani, Shirdi Hospital. Apart from stay in Shirdi Hospital for one day, she remained in Union Hospital from 17.10.1996 to 7.11.1996 thereafter from 25.11.1996 to 27.11.1996 and spent Rs. 40,000 on treatment. However, there is permanent disability in right hand and right foot. Compensation of Rs. 4,36,750 is claimed.

3. Opposite parties have denied the allegations with respect to age, income, injuries, expenditure on treatment and the period of stay of the claimant in various hospitals. The said truck was being driven carefully at low speed on the left side of the road while the other vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. Substance of the replies by respondents is that they are not responsible for the accident and attempt is to throw the liability on each other or the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling.

4. The Claims Tribunal, after recording of evidence and hearing the parties, concluded that the accident took place as alleged by the claimant, as a result thereof she suffered serious injuries. Accordingly, truck has been held responsible for this accident as against Matador. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 80,000 has been awarded carrying interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

5. Mr. H.S. Rajpal, learned counsel for the claimant contends that the Claims Tribunal has committed serious error in assessing the compensation in this case. The claimant suffered serious injuries, she was treated at various hospitals at great expenses and permanent disability is to the extent of 25 per cent, the treatment continued for 6 months and thereafter she is not in a fit state of health, having developed limps and shortening of right leg by 3/4th of an inch and as the age progresses she is likely to suffer further, particularly during winter season.

6. Mr. Pradip Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that looking to the nature of injuries and the evidence produced by the claimant, proper compensation has been awarded. Mr. S.S. Swami, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the Claims Tribunal has not found any fault with the vehicle insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, this company may not be held responsible for payment of compensation since the vehicle insured with it had not committed any lapse.

7. We have considered the matter in the context of evidence on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for parties. At the outset, it is recorded that in this accident, which is indisputable, the claimant suffered three fractures at three places in femur bone and also in right knee. The tibia and fibula of right foot are also fractured apart from left toe. There is fracture of right ulna bone and ring finger of right hand. She has been operated twice, extent of disability is 25 per cent and right leg is shortened by 3/4th of an inch and knee has also developed a bend as a result of which movement has become stiff. All these injuries have been proved by Dr. Rajat Verma (AW 4) who attended the claimant in the hospital at Indore. The claimant must have suffered great pain during the treatment. It is stated that treatment continued for six months and rod had been inserted in the femur, to remain there for some time and removable later at the expense of Rs. 6,000. The claimant must have spent on treatment, transport, special diet and attendant also. Therefore, in this background, it is not difficult to hold that the award of compensation of Rs. 80,000 is inadequate. Therefore, compensation is enhanced as under:

(1) Permanent disability Rs. 50,000 (2) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000 (3) Treatment Rs. 50,000 (4) Transport Rs. 10,000(5) Attendant Rs. 3,600(6) Special diet Rs. 10,000--------------- Total Rs. 1,73,600---------------

The award of the Claims Tribunal is accordingly modified. Claimant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 1,73,600 (rupees one lakh seventy-three thousand six hundred). The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date of application till payment, payable by New India Assurance Co, Ltd., Indore.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //