Ku. Bharti Singh Vs. State of M.P. and 3 ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles - enhancement of - compensation - appellant met with accident with jeep and sustained injuries - claimant filed claim petition for compensation before tribunal - petitioner allowed but amount of compensation reduced on ground of contributory negligence on part of claimant - being aggrieved by impugned order, claimant filed present appeal for enhancement of compensation - held, from facts it established that claimant dragged by jeep to some distance before it came to halt - driver stated that brakes were applied with full force to avoid accident - tribunal found that driver did not blow horn while driving through this area - evidence indicates that driver was fully responsible for committing accident - thus, finding of tribunal as of contributory negligence was not correct - further, claimant suffered 50% permanent disability as per medical report and was merely 20 years old at time of accident - thus, claimant entitled to get enhanced compensation under various heads - hence, appeal allowed - 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. - they also submit that under section 166 of the motor vehicles act father of claimant is not entitled to make good the loss he suffered in his business/trade/ profession while attending the claimant from time to time. 10,000/- towards the medical expenses which award has been challenged in this appeal since the claimant is not satisfied with it.orderbhawani singh, c.j.1. this appeal is directed against the award of motor accidents claims tribunal, sidhi, in claim case no. 49/94, dated 13-11-1995.2. kumari bharti singh (claimant) was a regular student of b.a., part ii in government college, waidhan. on 3-2-94 at 12-30 p.m. when she came out from the college to road for going to her house jeep no. cpz 4160 driven rashly and negligently by banwari sai (driver) hit her. she fell down and sustained serious injuries on her body including fracture to femur. she fell unconscious. matter was reported to the police station, waidhan by arvind kumar singh and claimant shifted to the hospital. the injuries suffered by the claimant were serious, the doctor at waidhan hospital advised taking the claimant to district hospital, sidhi. however, the father of claimant admitted her in n.c.l. hospital, waidhan for treatment where the doctor, looking to the condition of the claimant, advised for taking her to banaras. accordingly, the claimant was shifted to banaras on 8-2-1994 where she was treated at anand poly clinic research & training centre private limited, varanasi and subjected to surgery on 23-2-94. she was discharged from hospital on 7-3-94. thereafter, she was taken to banaras by taxi on 8-4-94 for check up as per the advice of doctor. by this time the claimant had started walking with assistance of crutches. according to the claimant, she sustained permanent disablement due to the accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. as a result of the accident, she could not resume her study, she states that she suffered injuries stated in para-9 of the petition for which the respondents are jointly and severally liable. compensation for rs. 4,41,000/- is claimed.3. respondents 2 to 4 have filed joint written statement. they submit that the accident had not taken place due to the fault of the driver who was driving the jeep carefully and at slow speed. according to them, when the jeep crossed by the college, claimant came and ran across the road. driver applied the brake with full force and attempted to save the claimant but she fell down after striking against the bumper of the jeep resulting in simple fracture. the accident was beyond humane control. it could not be avoided and the claimant was responsible for it. she could be treated in hospital at sidhi but she sought treatment at n.c.l. hospital and banaras unnecessarily which was resulted in huge expenditure for which she is not entitled. it was a case of simple fracture, therefore, suffering of permanent disability by the claimant did not arise. they also submit that under section 166 of the motor vehicles act father of claimant is not entitled to make good the loss he suffered in his business/trade/ profession while attending the claimant from time to time.4. on the pleading of parties, the claims tribunal framed issues of contest between them, and on appreciation of evidence led in the case, came to the conclusion that the claimant and the driver contributed equally to the accident which resulted in the injuries to the claimant for which both were responsible, therefore, out of total amount of compensation of rs. 60,000/-, claimant would be entitled to rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 25-4-94 till realisation. it may be recorded here that for determining compensation of rs. 60,000/-, claims tribunal awarded rs. 10,000/- towards the medical expenses which award has been challenged in this appeal since the claimant is not satisfied with it. it is prayed that award of rs. 4,41,000/- be made in favour of the claimant.5. learned counsel for parties were heard, record perused.6. first thing for consideration is whether the accident was the result of contributory negligence of the claimant and the driver of jeep. claims tribunal found that both of them contributed equally. for coming to this conclusion it took into consideration the fact that the claimant was crossing the road when the jeep came. she should have taken care while crossing it. we are unable to agree with appreciation of evidence in the case by the claims tribunal. the driver was taking the jeep through road where government degree college was located. he was not new to the place, knew that student generally cross it when the college opens and closes. students are normally found standing or crossing the road, therefore, he should have been vigilant in driving the vehicle when he passed through the college area. on the other hand, he was driving the vehicle with speed which is clear from the fact that claimant was dragged by the jeep to some distance before it came to halt. it is also stated by the respondents 2 to 4 that brakes were applied with full force to avoid the accident. it further demonstrates that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by driver. claims tribunal has also found that the driver did not blow horn while driving through this area. all these facts are enough to show that it was the driver who was responsible for committing the accident, driving the jeep rashly and negligently thereby causing serious injuries to the claimant. one of such injury was to femur. the way claimant was treated demonstrates that she suffered serious injuries. she was treated at hospital at waidhan, n.c.l. hospital, where the doctor could not handle the case due to serious injuries and she was shifted to district hospital, sidhi where also doctor advised for taking claimant to banaras, where she was treated at anand poly clinic research & training centre and subjected to surgical operation and discharged on 7-3-94. thereafter, also she visited banaras hospital again as per advice by the doctor on 8-4-94 moving with help of crutches. as per medical certificate permanent disability suffered by the claimant is to the extent of 50 percent. with this background, award of rs. 60,000/- is not correct. the claimant was 20 year old at the time of accident, studying in b.a., part ii. she states that after this accident she could not resume her study meaning thereby she could not complete her study and her prospects in life, being the daughter of doctor, annihilated.7. consequently, with the aforesaid background, we are of opinion that claimant should be entitled compensation of rs. 1,00,000.00 for the injuries, the disability suffered by her in this accident. the claimant has filed medical expenditure bills approximately for rs. 17,000/-. therefore, rs. 17,000/- are awarded towards medical expenses. she has also filed expenditure incurred for transportation through taxi for rs. 17,500/-. therefore, this amount is awarded for transportation expenditure. of course, the claimant was attended by her father but it is not possible to determine the exact loss suffered by him nor grant of the same is possible. however, it is undisputed that she was attended for 20 days by her father or any other attendant, she being a woman. towards this a sum of rs. 5000/- is awarded. result is, the claimant is awarded total compensation of rs. 1,39,500/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of application till realisation, however, parties are left to bear their own costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Bhawani Singh, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sidhi, in Claim Case No. 49/94, dated 13-11-1995.

2. Kumari Bharti Singh (claimant) was a regular student of B.A., Part II in Government College, Waidhan. On 3-2-94 at 12-30 p.m. when she came out from the College to road for going to her house jeep No. CPZ 4160 driven rashly and negligently by Banwari Sai (driver) hit her. She fell down and sustained serious injuries on her body including fracture to femur. She fell unconscious. Matter was reported to the Police Station, Waidhan by Arvind Kumar Singh and claimant shifted to the hospital. The injuries suffered by the claimant were serious, the doctor at Waidhan hospital advised taking the claimant to District Hospital, Sidhi. However, the father of claimant admitted her in N.C.L. Hospital, Waidhan for treatment where the doctor, looking to the condition of the claimant, advised for taking her to Banaras. Accordingly, the claimant was shifted to Banaras on 8-2-1994 where she was treated at Anand Poly Clinic Research & Training Centre Private Limited, Varanasi and subjected to surgery on 23-2-94. She was discharged from hospital on 7-3-94. Thereafter, she was taken to Banaras by taxi on 8-4-94 for check up as per the advice of doctor. By this time the claimant had started walking with assistance of crutches. According to the claimant, she sustained permanent disablement due to the accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. As a result of the accident, she could not resume her study, She states that she suffered injuries stated in para-9 of the petition for which the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Compensation for Rs. 4,41,000/- is claimed.

3. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed joint written statement. They submit that the accident had not taken place due to the fault of the driver who was driving the jeep carefully and at slow speed. According to them, when the jeep crossed by the college, claimant came and ran across the road. Driver applied the brake with full force and attempted to save the claimant but she fell down after striking against the bumper of the jeep resulting in simple fracture. The accident was beyond humane control. It could not be avoided and the claimant was responsible for it. She could be treated in hospital at Sidhi but she sought treatment at N.C.L. hospital and Banaras unnecessarily which was resulted in huge expenditure for which she is not entitled. It was a case of simple fracture, therefore, suffering of permanent disability by the claimant did not arise. They also submit that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act father of claimant is not entitled to make good the loss he suffered in his business/trade/ profession while attending the claimant from time to time.

4. On the pleading of parties, the Claims Tribunal framed issues of contest between them, and on appreciation of evidence led in the case, came to the conclusion that the claimant and the driver contributed equally to the accident which resulted in the injuries to the claimant for which both were responsible, therefore, out of total amount of compensation of Rs. 60,000/-, claimant would be entitled to Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 25-4-94 till realisation. It may be recorded here that for determining compensation of Rs. 60,000/-, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards the medical expenses which award has been challenged in this appeal since the claimant is not satisfied with it. It is prayed that award of Rs. 4,41,000/- be made in favour of the claimant.

5. Learned counsel for parties were heard, record perused.

6. First thing for consideration is whether the accident was the result of contributory negligence of the claimant and the driver of jeep. Claims Tribunal found that both of them contributed equally. For coming to this conclusion it took into consideration the fact that the claimant was crossing the road when the jeep came. She should have taken care while crossing it. We are unable to agree with appreciation of evidence in the case by the claims Tribunal. The driver was taking the jeep through road where Government Degree College was located. He was not new to the place, knew that student generally cross it when the college opens and closes. Students are normally found standing or crossing the road, therefore, he should have been vigilant in driving the vehicle when he passed through the college area. On the other hand, he was driving the vehicle with speed which is clear from the fact that claimant was dragged by the jeep to some distance before it came to halt. It is also stated by the respondents 2 to 4 that brakes were applied with full force to avoid the accident. It further demonstrates that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by driver. Claims Tribunal has also found that the driver did not blow horn while driving through this area. All these facts are enough to show that it was the driver who was responsible for committing the accident, driving the jeep rashly and negligently thereby causing serious injuries to the claimant. One of such injury was to femur. The way claimant was treated demonstrates that she suffered serious injuries. She was treated at hospital at Waidhan, N.C.L. Hospital, where the doctor could not handle the case due to serious injuries and she was shifted to District Hospital, Sidhi where also doctor advised for taking claimant to Banaras, where she was treated at Anand Poly Clinic Research & Training Centre and subjected to surgical operation and discharged on 7-3-94. Thereafter, also she visited Banaras hospital again as per advice by the doctor on 8-4-94 moving with help of crutches. As per medical certificate permanent disability suffered by the claimant is to the extent of 50 percent. With this background, award of Rs. 60,000/- is not correct. The claimant was 20 year old at the time of accident, studying in B.A., Part II. She states that after this accident she could not resume her study meaning thereby she could not complete her study and her prospects in life, being the daughter of doctor, annihilated.

7. Consequently, with the aforesaid background, we are of opinion that claimant should be entitled compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.00 for the injuries, the disability suffered by her in this accident. The claimant has filed medical expenditure bills approximately for Rs. 17,000/-. Therefore, Rs. 17,000/- are awarded towards medical expenses. She has also filed expenditure incurred for transportation through taxi for Rs. 17,500/-. Therefore, this amount is awarded for transportation expenditure. Of course, the claimant was attended by her father but it is not possible to determine the exact loss suffered by him nor grant of the same is possible. However, it is undisputed that she was attended for 20 days by her father or any other attendant, she being a woman. Towards this a sum of Rs. 5000/- is awarded. Result is, the claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,39,500/- with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of application till realisation, However, parties are left to bear their own costs.