Bijeram Vs. Mangudas and ors.

Bijeram vs Mangudas and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 30, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511556

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/511556
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Decided On: Apr 30, 2002
Case Number: M.A. No. 15 of 1998
Subject: Motor Vehicles;Insurance
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

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
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147; Insurance Act, 1938 - Sections 64VB

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bijeram

Advocate Vinay Vijaywargiya, Adv.

Respondent

Mangudas and ors.

Advocate S.V. Dandwate, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147; Insurance Act, 1938 - Sections 64VB
Cases Referred: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi
Reported In: 2004ACJ153

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..........mandsaur in m.a.c.c. case no. 33 of 1997 thereby exonerating the respondent no. 3 insurance company from the liability of payment of compensation as awarded in favour of respondent no. 1 (claimant).2. for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, facts in brief are, that a case for grant of compensation was filed before the tribunal by the claimant-respondent no. 1 against the present appellant who was indicated as owner of the offending vehicle; respondent no. 2 driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident and the respondent no. 3, the insurance company with whom the alleged tractor was insured.3. it is not in dispute that the alleged accident occurred at 4 p.m. on 2.12.1992, the learned tribunal allowed the petition filed on behalf of the claimant and awarded compensation of rs. 72,000 together with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in favour of the claimant payable by appellant and respondent no. 2. the insurance company was exonerated from the liability of payment of awarded amount mainly on the ground that as per case of the insurance company the time of commencing of policy was mentioned in the policy and according to the insurance policy, it commenced from 5.30 p.m. on 2.12.1992.4. agreeing by the aforesaid award of the claims tribunal exonerating insurance-company from the liability of payment of awarded amount, the appellant owner has filed this appeal.5. i have heard mr. vinay vijaywargiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and mr. s.v. dandwate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 insurance company. no one appears for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.6. the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per case of the appellant he submitted the proposal form along with amount of the premium to the agent of the insurance company at 11 a.m. on 2.12.1992. as such, the policy commences from the time of handing over the proposal form and premium to the agent of the insurance company, in view.....

Full Judgment

Sakrikar, J.

1. The appellant, owner of the offending vehicle, has directed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 1.9.1997 passed by M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in M.A.C.C. Case No. 33 of 1997 thereby exonerating the respondent No. 3 insurance company from the liability of payment of compensation as awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 (claimant).

2. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, facts in brief are, that a case for grant of compensation was filed before the Tribunal by the claimant-respondent No. 1 against the present appellant who was indicated as owner of the offending vehicle; respondent No. 2 driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident and the respondent No. 3, the insurance company with whom the alleged tractor was insured.

3. It is not in dispute that the alleged accident occurred at 4 p.m. on 2.12.1992, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition filed on behalf of the claimant and awarded compensation of Rs. 72,000 together with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in favour of the claimant payable by appellant and respondent No. 2. The insurance company was exonerated from the liability of payment of awarded amount mainly on the ground that as per case of the insurance company the time of commencing of policy was mentioned in the policy and according to the insurance policy, it commenced from 5.30 p.m. on 2.12.1992.

4. Agreeing by the aforesaid award of the Claims Tribunal exonerating insurance-company from the liability of payment of awarded amount, the appellant owner has filed this appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Vinay Vijaywargiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 insurance company. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as per case of the appellant he submitted the proposal form along with amount of the premium to the agent of the insurance company at 11 a.m. on 2.12.1992. As such, the policy commences from the time of handing over the proposal form and premium to the agent of the insurance company, in view of the provision of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. S.V. Dandwate submitted that as per the provision of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, the policy may commence from the time and date when the proposal along with premium was handed over to the agent of the insurance company, but under the same provision, it is mentioned that the risk under the policy shall commence from the time of acceptance of the proposal and issuance of the cover note. He also contended that in view of series of decisions of the Supreme Court, the risk under the insurance policy shall come into force from the time and date mentioned in the cover note or in the policy, as the case may be and in no case prior to that. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi, 1999 ACJ 534 (SC).

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this case, insurance policy is available on the record and on perusal of the insurance policy (Exh. D-4), it emerged that in this policy the effective date and time of the insurance is mentioned as 5.30 p.m. on 2.12.1992 to 1.12.1993. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, when the time of commencement is mentioned in the insurance policy it shall become effective for the liability of payment of compensation from the time onwards, as mentioned in the insurance policy. In this case, it is not disputed that the alleged accident occurred much prior to the time of commencement of the insurance policy (Exh. D-4). As such, in my considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal has committed no error in exonerating the insurance company from the liability of the payment of awarded amount on the ground that at the time of the accident the policy was not effective.

8. In the result, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant fails and liable to be dismissed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2002 Same Parties Bijeram vs Mangudas and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles;Insurance Same Judge S.B. Sakrikar, J. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147; Insurance Act, 1938 ...

Motor Vehicles;Insurance As the case may be insurance policy supreme court Motor vehicle Together with On behalf of per annum