IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    12851    OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 26011 of 2016)

DAMINI AND ANOTHER  ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER           ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.  

2. What is the period of limitation for filing a suit or claim under

The  Fatal  Accidents  Act,  1855  is  the  issue  arising  for

consideration in this case.

3. The appellants are the widow and son of one Pradeep Bhai

Patel who worked as a driver of a bus. The deceased was

driving passengers from Ahmedabad to Rajasthan. When the

bus  reached  a  dharamshala,  the  deceased  climbed  the

rooftop  of  the  bus  to  bring  down  the  luggage  of  the

passengers. When the deceased was on the rooftop, a naked

electricity wire touched his hand. Due to the electrocution,

the deceased fell down from the roof of the bus. Thereafter,

he was rushed to the hospital where he was declared dead

REPORTABLE

by the doctors. The cause of death was the contact with the

live electricity wire.

4. The appellants filed an application under Section 1A of the

Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 before the District Judge, Jaisalmer,

Rajasthan  claiming  Rs.22,68,000/-  towards  damages.  The

claim was resisted on the ground of limitation among other

grounds.

5.  According  to  the  respondents,  under  Article  82  of  The

Limitation Act, 1963, the claim should have been presented

within two years from the date of death of the person. The

contention was upheld and the claim petition was dismissed.

The decision was upheld by the High Court as well, and thus,

the appellants are before this Court.

6. It is the contention of the appellants that the petition filed

before the District Judge has to be treated as a Civil Suit for

damages, and hence, it was the residuary entry, viz., Article

113  which  should  have  been  applied,  in  which  case,  the

limitation is three years from when the right to sue accrues

which is the date of death, i.e., 14.09.2008.

7. In  the  present  case,  the  claim  petition  was  preferred  on

05.09.2011  before  the  District  Judge,  and  therefore,

according  to  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  appellants,  the

petition was within time.

8. We  are  afraid  the  contentions  raised  by  the  appellants

cannot  be  appreciated.  Part  VII  of  the  Schedule  to  the

Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for period of limitation

deals with suits relating to tort. Article 82 is under Part VII.

The same reads as follows:  

“PART VII- SUITS RELATING TO TORT

Description of suit

Period of limitation Time from which period

begins to run

By executors, administrator

s or

representativ es under the Indian Fatal

Accidents Act, 1855

(13 of 1855).

Two years. The date of the death of the person

killed.”

9. Under Part X, Article 113  reads as follows:  

“PART X-SUITS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED PERIOD

Description of suit

Period of limitation Time from which period

begins to run

Any suit for which no period of

limitation is provided

elsewhere in this Schedule.

Three years. When the right to sue accrues.”

10. As rightly contended by Shri  Punjeet Jain,  learned Counsel

appearing  for  the  respondents,  once  a  specific  period  of

limitation is referrable to any of the entries in the Schedule

to the Limitation Act, 1963, then the residuary Article 113

cannot be invoked. In the instant case, for a suit for damages

under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 Article 82 provides for a

specific period of limitation, viz., two years from the date of

death of the person.  

11. Part VII of the Schedule deals with the “suits relating to tort”.

Therefore, when a suit for compensation is filed under the

Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the same has to be filed within the

period of  two years as  prescribed under  Article  82 of  the

Limitation  Act,  1963.  In  the  instant  case,  the  action  for

damages is brought under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents

Act, 1855. The provision reads as follows:  

“[1A.] Suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong.-Whenever the death of a person shall  be  caused by  wrongful  act,  neglect  or  default, and the  act,  neglect  or  default  is  such  as  would  (if death had not ensued) have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the party who would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action or suit for damages,  notwithstanding  the  death  of  the  person injured and although the death shall have been caused

under such circumstances as amount in law to felony or other crime.

Every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death shall  have been so caused, and shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator  or  representative  of  the  person deceased;  

and in every such action, the court may give such damages  as  it  may  think  proportioned  to  the  loss resulting from such death to the parties respectively, for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, and the amount so recovered, after deducting all  costs  and  expenses,  including  the  costs  not recovered  from  the  defendant,  shall  be  divided amongst the before-mentioned parties, or any of them, in such shares as the court by its judgment or decree shall direct.”

12. The appellants have placed reliance on the decision of this

Court  in  Jay  Laxmi  Salt  Works  (P)  Ltd.   v.  State  of

Gujarat  1 to justify their argument that Article 113 should be

applied for computation of period of limitation.  Jay Laxmi

(supra) was not a case of death of a person and it was also

not a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It pertained

to a claim of damages for loss due to damage to property.

Therefore,  Jay Laxmi (supra) has no relevance in a suit for

damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It is also to be

noted that there is no particular period of limitation under

the  Fatal  Accidents  Act,  1855.  Therefore,  the  suit  under

Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 has to be filed

1  (1994) 4 SCC 1

within two years.  

13. However on a query as to whether there is a scheme under

the  first  respondent  for  providing  compensation  to  the

victims, the learned standing Counsel has informed us that

there is a scheme under the Rules now applicable wherein

the  legal  heirs  of  the  deceased  person  are  entitled  to  a

one-time compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The accident is of the

year 2008. Therefore, we are of the view that it is a fit case

to  invoke  our  jurisdiction  under  Article  142  of  the

Constitution of India and grant Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation.

The  first  respondent  shall  pay  this  amount  to  the  first

appellant  within  two  months  from  today  otherwise  the

appellants  will  be entitled to   interest  of  12 per  cent  per

annum  from  the  date  of  the  accident  and  the  officers

responsible for  the delay shall  be personally liable for the

same.

14. We make it clear that this order is passed under the peculiar

facts  of  this  case and hence,  it  is  not  to  be treated as a

precedent.

15. The appeal is disposed of as above. There shall be no order

as to costs.

.......................J.         (KURIAN JOSEPH)

.……………………J.                          (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi; SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.  

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.5               SECTION XV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  26011/2016 DAMINI  & ANOTHER                                  Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDHYUT VITRAN  NIGAM LTD  & ANOTHER   Respondent(s) Date : 14-09-2017 This petition was called for Judgment today.   For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR

(Appearance slip not given)                     For Respondent(s) Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

(Appearance slip not given)                      

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph pronounced the reportable Judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble  Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.   

Leave granted.  The appeal is disposed of.   Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA)                            (RENU DIWAN)   COURT MASTER                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)