Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

A.K. Mishra, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. No other submission was raised.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510814',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. No other submission was raised.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510814',
		(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Pushpa Bai and ors Vs Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors - Citation 510814 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510814',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Pushpa Bai and ors. Vs. Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - Exonerate - Claimants were family member of deceased - Deceased dies in an accideny occurred due to rash and negligent driving of X - X also died in accident - Vehicle belonged to Y but before accident, vehicle was sold to X - Claimants filed petition for compensation - Tribunal granted compensation against Y - Being aggrieved, X filed appeal - Claimant also filed appeal for enhancement of compensation - Whether Y shall be exonerated from liability to pay compensation? - Held Y was not registered owner of vehicle at the time of accident as vehicle was sold by Y to X - X was registered owner - So, legal representative of X liable to pay compensation - Accordingly, Y exonerated from liability to pay compensation<br><br>

Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Enhancement of - Whether quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal was just and proper? - Held, taking in to consideration age, income and dependency of deceased - Multiplier 17 would be applied - So, quantum of compensation granted by Tribunal not just and proper and required to be enhanced - Accordingly, quantum of compensation enhanced - 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 whether or not the final product is an excisable product. In the process of manufacturing of country spirit, the over proof spirit which is not potable is reduced to issuable strength, which is potable. Colouring and flavouring agents are added at the time of maturation. Thereafter the liquor is supplied in sealed bottles to the retail contractors. This is the process of treatment given to over proof spirit in order to render it fit for human consumption in the form of country liquor. If the process is analysed there cannot be any scintilla of doubt that the process involves the manufacturing one under the provisions of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per the M.P. Country Spirits Rules as well as Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions it is mandatory for a distiller to supply country liquor in sealed bottles and not otherwise. Therefore, packaging and bottling of liquor come within the ambit and sweep of manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2 Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of the definition contained in Section 65(76b) of the Finance Act especially keeping in view the exclusionary facet and further regard being had to the circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. -  4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2007-03-06',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.K. Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.</p><p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.</p><p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.</p><p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.</p><p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.</p><p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.</p><p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.</p><p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .</p><p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.</p><p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.</p><p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.</p><p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.</p><p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.</p><p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.</p><p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.</p><p>15. No other submission was raised.</p><p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008ACJ560',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gulab Chand Vaishya and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510814',
	(int) 1 => 'pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510814/pushpa-bai-vs-chand-vaishya'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>A.K. Mishra, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. These two appeals are arising out of the same award dated 17.12.1999 passed by Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sheopur under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Claim Case No. 3 of 1991.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Claimants filed this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 64,40,000 on account of death of Naresh Kumar in an accident on 10.6.1991 when he was travelling in a jeep No. RNO 6062 which was owned and driven by Man Mohan in a negligent manner due to that it turned turtle. Naresh Kumar died on the spot and others sustained injuries. An F.I.R. was lodged and offence was registered against Man Mohan under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It was claimed that 14 bighas of agricultural land had fallen in the share of deceased in family partition. The family owned 28 bighas of the land that used to be looked after by the deceased. Annual loss was assessed at Rs. 1,70,000. Man Mohan died during the pendency of the claim petition. His father Gulab Chand was substituted as his legal heir. The insurer in the written statement has contended that the policy does not cover third party risk of the passengers. The vehicle was used for the purpose of commercial gain and the driver was not having a licence.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The owner Gopal Lal in the written statement contended that accident took place on 10.6.1991. Jeep was sold on 9.5.1991 and on the date of accident, name of Man Mohan was recorded as registered owner and he was in possession of the vehicle, as such, he could not be held liable.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The Claims Tribunal has found that the accident was an outcome of negligent act by Man Mohan due to which Naresh Kumar sustained injuries and died. There was violation of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch the ownership of the vehicle was transferred by Gopal Lal to the deceased Man Mohan, intimation was not given about the transfer to the insurance company. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation and the liability has been held to be of Gopal Lal to make the payment of compensation. Consequently, these appeals have been preferred by Gopal Lal Rathore and the claimants.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Mr. Shishir Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 91 of 2000 has submitted that registration of the vehicle was made on 29.5.1991 and name of Man Mohan was recorded as owner of the vehicle. Thus, the liability was that of Man Mohan/his L.Rs. and the insurer to make the payment of compensation. Liability could not have been fastened on Gopal Lal Rathore.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Mr. B.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the claimants and the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner as held by Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtah Begum : AIR2004SC4360 .',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Mr. M.P. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that insurer has been rightly exonerated as the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the policy on hire.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. Mr. N.D. Singhal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Gulab Chand, father of Man Mohan has stated that as Gulab Chand was residing separately from his son Man Mohan, he could not have been treated as legal heir of the deceased and was not liable to pay compensation.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. It has not been disputed at the Bar that vehicle was plied for commercial purpose on hire and the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is also not disputed that the vehicle was transferred to Man Mohan and on the date of the accident, he was the registered owner. His name was recorded as registered owner on 29.5.1991.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. The Apex Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. : [1999]2SCR476 , laid down that in a case of transfer of vehicle, policy does not lapse. The insurer remains liable to a third party to make the payment of compensation. Even, if no intimation of transfer was given to the insurer, it was held to be of no consequence. A Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kans Ram : 2000(2)MPLJ506 , has taken a similar view and it was held that policy remains effective. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh : AIR2006SC1576 , law to similar effect has been laid down. Thus, it is held that registered owner and insurer would remain liable to make the payment of compensation after vehicle has been transferred and mere non-intimation of transfer to the insurer does not absolve the insurer from making payment of compensation but on the other ground, in this case, violation of policy has been found.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 23 years. Claim petition has been filed by the parents and the widow. Jamnalal, PW 1, father of the deceased deposed that after the death of his son, family was put to loss. He stated that he has to employ a driver to whom payment of Rs. 25,000 used to be made and a labourer has also been employed to whom payment of Rs. 16,000 used to be made by him because this became essential after the death of Naresh Kumar, no one was in his family to look after the affairs. Mahesh Kumar, PW 2, has also stated that the deceased used to look after the agricultural land. He owned about 15-20 bighas of agricultural land and Naresh Kumar was their only son.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to assess income of deceased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month which comes to Rs. 36,000 per annum and after making one-third deduction on account of self expenditure of the deceased, the annual loss of income comes to Rs. 24,000 on which multiplier of 17 has to be applied. Thus, compensation comes to Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000. In addition to this amount, a sum of Rs. 25,000 under customary heads of loss to estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life and Rs. 7,500 for loss of consortium to widow is included. Thus, the compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 4,33,000 (rupees four lakh thirty-three thousand). The amount of compensation is ordered to be disbursed in equal proportion to the widow as well as to the parents, i.e., 50 per cent to the widow and 50 per cent to parents. Thus, claimants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim petition to realisation of their claim.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>14. As the vehicle transferred in the name of Man Mohan, liability is held to be L.R. of the registered owner Man Mohan, namely, Gulab Chand to make the payment of compensation. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pra-mod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum : AIR2004SC4360 , claimants are given liberty to recover the amount from the L.R. of the registered owner, namely, Gulab Chand.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>15. No other submission was raised.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>The appeals are thus allowed to the extent above. The parties to bear their own costs.<p>',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 18
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109