Bhanwar Singh Vs. Ramcharan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a very wide connotation. as the definition clause lays down an inclusive facet, the term manufacture has to be construed in a natural and plain manner and would include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. keeping in view the context in which the term manufacture has been used, it would take in its fold incidental and ancillary process in the manufacture or finishing of any manufactured product. it does not leave any room for doubt that an allied process should be integral and inextricable part of manufacture of completeness and presentability of the manufactured product. section 65(76b) of finance act used the words but it does not include. thus it is a definition which has the inclusive as well as exclusive facet. by virtue of the same it may include certain things and exclude others. it is well settled principle of law that a definition is not to be read in isolation and has to read in context of phrase which it defines, releasing that function of a definition is to give precision and certainty to the word or phrase which would otherwise be vague and uncertain. regard being had to the exclusionary fact in the finance act, though a limited one it would exclude the manufacturing process as defined under section 2(f) of the 1944 act. keeping in view the aforesaid dictionary clauses and circulars issued by the c.b.e.c. it is quite luminescent that would manufacture has to be understood in a broader sense and not to be confined or restricted to the excisable product in the act. it would include all processes which amount to manufacture 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. - 12 to 13 thousand and if the complainant wants to get the better treatment done he will require to go to bombay where expenditure would be rs. it as contended by the counsel for the appellant that earlier he was got treated in the government hospital as well as military hospital, but his condition did not improve.fakhruddin, j.1. this is an appeal by claimant-injured for enhancement of award passed by motor accident claims tribunal, gwalior, in claim case no. 60/83, on 22.11.1988.2. brief facts of the case are as under: the accident occurred on 24.3.1983 at about 1.30 p.m., while the claimant (acyclist) was going on his duty from morar towards j.c. mill had crossed the railway crossing on his left side, it is alleged that rarricharan (respondent no. 1), who was driving a truck no. 2932, belonging to m.p.s.r.t.c. came from behind rashly and negligently and dashed the cyclist, as a result thereof he fell down and sustained injuries on right thigh, right hand middle finger, left elbow and other parts of the body. the bicycle was also damaged. he was taken in j.c. mill's ambulance to the gwalior police station where a report was lodge and an offence under sections 279 & 330 indian panel code was registered at crime no. 192/83.the claimant-injured was admitted in j.a. hospital and remained there from 24.3.1983 to 26.3.1983. then, he was shifted to military hospital and remained there from 26.3.1983 to 2.4.1983. then, was again brought to j.a. hospital, where he remained till 30.4.1983 and he was again shifted to military hospital on 1.5.1983 and remained there till 16.5.1983. he was, during his treatment, operated and a rod was inserted in his right thigh.3. it was contended that the claimant-injured had to engage a helper for rs. 200/- per month it was also contended that he was serving as a chowkidar/jamadar in the j.c. mill and was getting rs. 450/- per month, and as a result of accident he has been deprived of his services as chowkidar. as such, he claimed compensation to the tune of rs. 2,39,400/- on all counts.the nas-respondents denied the claim and contended that the truck was being driven gradually and slowly and near the crossing he wanted to go towards steel authority and had given indicator. at the same time some bullock carts were passing and as soon as the truck passed through these bullock carts, some notice was heard and when the truck driver stopped and when he came down, he saw that a cyclist from wrong side wanted to over take and he was crushed by those bullock carts, and sustained injuries. it is further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the cyclist-claimant himself.4. the learned tribunal on evidence being recorded has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver, and awarded a compensation of rs. 27,000/- in all.5. we have gone through the evidence of p.w. 1, bhanwarsingh (claimant) and p. w. 2 baba saheb falke. the evidence of these two persons establishes that the accident occurred due to rash negligent driving of the truck and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned tribunal in this respect is affirmed. we do not find any material on record to suggest that the cyclist, in any way, was responsible for this accident. the accident occurred solely by rashness and negligence of the driving of the truck.6. the counsel for the appellant, on the basis of evidence of dr. j.k. diwan (p.w. 3) and his medical report ex. p/9, has contended that there was fracture on the right thigh bone and besides this he had injuries on right forearm, left knee, right hand's middle finger. evidence of p.w. 4 dr. b.p. purohit also found the same injuries and he also establishes that the claimant had sustained injuries, he was operated and by operation process a rod was put and inspire of 6 years having passed his bones have not improved. he has given opinion that a major operation is required and unless this is done he would not be able to walk. presently he is walking on baisakhi. his right leg is 6 cms. smaller than the left leg. he can not stand on his right leg nor he can sit in aalthi palthi position, in which the right ankle rests on the left thigh and the left ankle on the right thigh. he is also not in a position to perform the duties as chowkidarthe appellant has produced documents (ex. p/2 to p/7) and also a document ex. p/12. p.w. 4 dr. purohit has stated that if the complainant is to operate at gwalior in a private nursing home, the expenditure would be rs. 12 to 13 thousand and if the complainant wants to get the better treatment done he will require to go to bombay where expenditure would be rs. 70 to 80 thousand. the doctor is not in a position to say as to whether in the government hospital at gwalior such facility is available or not.it as contended by the counsel for the appellant that earlier he was got treated in the government hospital as well as military hospital, but his condition did not improve.7. the learned tribunal awarded rs. 10;000/- for the treatment and special diet, rs. 12,000/- for loss of earning due to permanent disability and rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony. thus, rs. 27,000/- has been awarded. as the complainant had already received rs. 7,500/- as interim payment for no fault liability, the same was adjusted and for the balance amount of rs. 19,500/-, the award has been passed.8. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is very meager sum. learned counsel relying on the following decisions submitted that the amount should be enhanced. in 1984 a.c.j. 559 (s.c.) there was fracture of both legs resulting in amputation of right leg. injured was an unmarried girl aged 23 years--life of a young girl completely blighted and her entire future marred making it impossible for her to live a healthy and vigorous life--a ward of rs. 50,000/- was enhanced to rs. 1,00,000/-. he also relied on another decision of this court reported in 1990 m.p.w.n. (1)116 (mp), wherein both legs fractured and one imputed. rs. 10,000/- was awarded. it was held that too meager amount has been awarded and the amount was enhanced to rs. 50,000/-learned counsel further relied on a decision as reported in 1989 (2) a.c.j. 726 (p & h) in which there was amputation of the right arm from the shoulder-tribunal awarded rs. 2,00,000/-. the award was upheld in appeal. he also relied on 1989 acj 708 (punjab & haryana) where in there was amputation of right arm--permanent disability tribunal awarded rs. 50,000/- for loss of income, rs. 15,000/- as spl. damages, rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and rs. 5,000/- towards expenses on treatment, total rs. 75,000/-, which was upheld in appeal.another decision as relied on is 1976 a.c.j. 286 (bombay) wherein there was fracture of right elbow. injured was aged 63 years, a surgeon having nursing home and consulting rooms and earning rs. 20,400/- per annum--disability in the movement of elbow-- efficiency in operation work reduced--tribunal awarded rs. 17,000/- for nursing & medicines, rs. 73,779/- for loss sustained for 4 years plus rs. 63,000/- expected loss for further three years, total rs. 1,38,479/-. the award upheld in appeal. learned counsel further relied on 1977 a.c.j. 140 (bombay) wherein injured was a girl aged 6 years-- permanent disability in leg--claims tribunal awarded rs. 32,500/-. award was upheld in appeal. he further relied on 1985 a.c.j. 500 (punjab & haryana) wherein there was compound fracture of both left tibia and fibula, wound in chin, two operations on the leg-shortening of leg by 3/4'--permanent disability to 15 to 20% --tribunal awarded rs. 22,360/-. award enhanced in appeal to 43,000/-. he also relied on 1988 a.c.j. vol. 2 page 658 m.p.s.r.t.c. v. shyamkishore. in that case there were fractures in tibia bone of right leg, metatareal bone of left leg and 3rd rib. injured remained on bed for 3 to 4 months and had disability in breathing for a week. injured, a district judge has been handicapped in his movements. the tribunal awarded rs. 25,000/- as general damages for pain and suffering, physical disability and discomforts, rs. 6,640/- for loss of earned leave and rs. 7,000/- for special diet, nursing charges and transportation etc.--total rs. 38,640/- and the said award was upheld by the d.b. of this high court.9. considering the cases cited, we are of the opinion that so far as compensation of rs. 10,000/-, which has been awarded for treatment & special diet, is just and proper and calls for no interference. the tribunal, in its award, has elaborately discussed the evidence and documents on record, while awarding the compensation under this head. the compensation of rs. 5,000/- awarded by the tribunal for pain and suffering and mental agony is also appears to be just and proper. so far as the compensation awarded by the tribunal for permanent disability and loss of earning is concerned, in our opinion, the same appears to be on lower side. it is, therefore, enhanced from rs. 12,000/- to rs. 25,000/- to meet the ends of justice. the claimant-appellant was working as chowkidar, he lost his job. even otherwise the mill has been closed.as a result, the appeal is partly allowed. the amount of compensation, as awarded by the tribunal, is enhanced from rs. 27,00,0/- to 40,000/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of application till realisation. counsels fee rs. 500/-, if certified.