National Insurance Company Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Tiwari and 2 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.n.p. singh, j.1. this common judgment also disposes of m.a. no. 88/90 as they arise out of the same motor accident.2. both the appeals are preferred by the appellant, national insurance company against the award dated 25.7.89 given by the 6th additional motor accident claims tribunal, bhopal in m.c.c. nos. 13 & 75/86 whereby compensation of rs. 49, 318,80 paise was awarded to the claimant dr. vandana tiwari respondent no. 1 in m.a. no. 87/90 and rs. 21,100/- to ashok tiwari claimant/respondent no. 1 in m.a. no. 88/90 with interest @ 12% per annum.3. material facts which has given rise to this appeal are that on 4.4.89 at about 10 p.m. the respondent/claimants who were husband and wife and were in the service of the state government as assistant surgeons in poly clinic hospital, chhola road, bhopal were travelling from bhopal to bairagarh in tempo number m.pow. 3060 being driven by the respondent no. 2 raja and owned by respondent no. 2 usmani when the tempo proceeded ahead near the grave yard the driver of the tempo lost balance, and the tempo was dashed against the stationary truck standing on the road, as a result, the respondent and other co-passengers also received injuries.4. the respondents doctor couple preferred an application for grant of compensation before the motor accident claims tribunal, bhopal who by the impugned award compensation to the amount mentioned aforesaid and held the appellant, in insurance company liable to pay the compensation.5. admittedly, the offending tempo was insured with the appellant insurance company.6. the point for consideration in these appeals are that whether the liability of the insurance company under section 95 of the m.v. act at the relevant time is to the extent of rs. 15,000/- to each individual passenger or to the extent of rs. 50,000/- to each individual passenger.7. mr. s.k. mishra counsel for the appellant, insurance company has contended that in the insurance policy no additional premium was charge to cover the additional risk of the individual passenger, therefore, the liability of the insurance company under section 95 of the m.v. act was to the extent of rs. 15,000/- each individual passenger.8. mr. k.k. pandey counsel for the respondent on the other hand has contended that the liability of the insurance company was not limited to the extent of rs. 15,000/- but to the extent of rs. 50,000/- to each individual passengers.9. on perusal of clause 13-a of the insurance policy ex. d. 1 it appears that the liability of the insurance company was limited in the sum of rs. 15,000/- for each individual passengers and no additional premium was charged to cover the additional risk of the individual passenger.10. it is relevant to mention here section 95(2)(b) of the m.v. act which read as under:(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of for hire or reward or by reason or in pursuance of a contract of employment.(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;(ii). in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger.11. it is clear that the insurer's liability in respect of person other than a passenger carried for hire or reward is limited to rs. 50,000/- for each accident. in motor owners insurance co. v. jadavji keshavji modi and ors : [1982]1scr860 it is held by the supreme court that if more than one person is injured during the course of one single transaction, each one of the persons who has met with an accident, each accident shall be treated separately for the liability of the insurance co. to the extent of rs. 50,000/- sub-clause (i) of section 95(2)(b) speaks about persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward and sub-clause (ii) of section 95(2)(b) provides for the liability to be indemnified by the insurer for the passengers carried for hire or reward and that liability is to extent for rs. 15,000/- for each individual passenger.12. it is thus obvious, that the liability of the insurance company in respect of the passenger carried for hire of reward was limited to the extent of rs. 15,000/- for each individual passenger.13. the impugned order of award given by the claims tribunal is beyond the statutory limit provided in section 98(2)(b) of the m.v. act therefore, it cannot be sustained and the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation more than statutory limit to rs. 15,000/- to each of the respondent/claimant.14. the award is modified and the respondents/claimants are awarded compensation to the extent of rs. 15,000/- each. the appellant, insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the respondent/claimant with interest at the rate of 16% from the date of filing of the application, and both the appeals are accordingly disposed of.