Rajesh Kumar Vs. Kunwar Singh and anr.

Rajesh Kumar vs Kunwar Singh and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 27, 2000

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/511589

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/511589
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: V.K. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: Mar 27, 2000
Subject: Insurance;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: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Kumar

Respondent

Kunwar Singh and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: 2(2000)ACC684

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..........a total award of rs. 46,918/- was granted in favour of claimant/respondent no. 1.5. learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent no. 1/claimant failed to prove the above fact. hence, liability to pay the amount of award could not have been fastened on the appellant. it was further contended that the amount of award is excessive, inasmuch as the claimant/respondent no. 1 did not suffer any permanent disablement, and that the amount of non-pecuniary damages as assessed and granted by the impugned award, is excessive.6. as noticed earlier, the appellant did not specifically deny the allegation of the respondent no. 1-claimant that the offending vehicle adg 4195 was owned by him. his denial to the specific averments of the claimant in para 8 of his application under section 166 of the 'act' is rather evasive and vague, inasmuch as he has stated in his reply that the above allegations of the claimant/respondent no. 1 were without basis. he did not aver that the motorcycle adg 4195 did not belong to him. in his statement appellant brajesh kumar (naw/1) in para 3 has admitted that he has obtained the said motorcycle on 'supratnama' by filing an application to the effect that the motorcycle belonged to him. he further states that he did not care to verify as to whom the said motorcycle belonged.7. obviously in view of the above statement it is clear that the appellant has persisted in his evasion regarding the ownership of the offending motorcycle. the registration certificate of the motorcycle was not got produced by him, nor he examined any official of the regional transport officer in support of his contention that the offending vehicle did not belong to him. therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence and testimony of the claimant/respondent no. 1 that the offending vehicle was in the ownership of the appellant brajesh kumar. it is also clear from the statement of.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 13.9.1996, in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 35/91, by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Multai, Betul, whereby an award of Rs. 46,918/- has been granted in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1.

2. It is now not in dispute that the claimant/respondent No. 1 is an Advocate. He was driving his motorcycle No. BTA 7332 from Amla to Multal, his motorcycle was dashed by another motorcycle No. ADG 4195, driven by respondent No. 2 Shiv Shankar.

3. The claimant/appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), claiming compensation on account of the said accident. He averred that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by respondent No. 2. It was also averred that the said motorcycle was owned by the appellant. He suffered fractures and had to undergo treatment for about three months, resulting in loss of earning, mental pain and sufferings and loss of future prospects. The respondent No. 2 did not appear to contest the said application. The appellant filed his reply. In his reply, he did not specifically deny that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. ADG 4195.

4. Learned Tribunal after assessment of material and evidence on record concluded that the accident occurred on account of respondent No. 2 Shiv Shankar Thakur driving motorcycle ADG 4195 rashly and negligently. It was also held that the appellant is the owner of the said vehicle. It was further held that the respondent No. 1/claimant suffered fracture in his left leg. He had to incur expenditure of Rs. 6,918/- in his treatment. He suffered loss of earning of Rs. 15,000/-, towards non-pecuniary damages for mental and physical pain Rs. 25,000/- were awarded. Thus a total award of Rs. 46,918/- was granted in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent No. 1/claimant failed to prove the above fact. Hence, liability to pay the amount of award could not have been fastened on the appellant. It was further contended that the amount of award is excessive, inasmuch as the claimant/respondent No. 1 did not suffer any permanent disablement, and that the amount of non-pecuniary damages as assessed and granted by the impugned award, is excessive.

6. As noticed earlier, the appellant did not specifically deny the allegation of the respondent No. 1-claimant that the offending vehicle ADG 4195 was owned by him. His denial to the specific averments of the claimant in para 8 of his application under Section 166 of the 'Act' is rather evasive and vague, inasmuch as he has stated in his reply that the above allegations of the claimant/respondent No. 1 were without basis. He did not aver that the motorcycle ADG 4195 did not belong to him. In his statement appellant Brajesh Kumar (NAW/1) in para 3 has admitted that he has obtained the said motorcycle on 'Supratnama' by filing an application to the effect that the motorcycle belonged to him. He further states that he did not care to verify as to whom the said motorcycle belonged.

7. Obviously in view of the above statement it is clear that the appellant has persisted in his evasion regarding the ownership of the offending motorcycle. The registration certificate of the motorcycle was not got produced by him, nor he examined any official of the Regional Transport Officer in support of his contention that the offending vehicle did not belong to him. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence and testimony of the claimant/respondent No. 1 that the offending vehicle was in the ownership of the appellant Brajesh Kumar. It is also clear from the statement of claimant/respondent No. 1 that the accident occurred on accident of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle belonging to the appellant by its driver Shiv Shankar-the respondent No. 2 herein, as is the finding of the learned Tribunal. Obviously, therefore, the appellant, owner of the offending vehicle ADG 4195 and the driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1.

8. So far as quantum of damages is concerned, since the claimant/respondent No. 1 has proved the medical expenditure which he spent to the extent of Rs. 6,918/-, the same was rightly allowed in his favour by the Tribunal. The loss of earning for the period of treatment assessed at Rs. 15,000/- which extended to a period of three months, as stated by the claimant/respondent No. 1, also does not seem to be excessive. However, so far as non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 25,000/- for mental and physical pain is concerned, it seems to be a little on the higher side and deserves to be modified to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of accident, injuries, duration of treatment and also in view of the fact that the claimant did not suffer any permanent disablement. Accordingly, the award deserves to be reduced to Rs. 41,918/-.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the award of Rs. 46,918/- (Rupees forty-six thousand nine hundred and eighteen) is modified and the amount is reduced to Rs. 41,918/- (Rupees forty-one thousand nine hundred and eighteen) with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Cost of this appeal shall be borne by both the parties.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Rajesh Kumar vs Kunwar Singh and anr. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge V.K. Agarwal, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles