Skip to main content

Period Of Limitation - Article 113 Of Limitation Act Can’t Be invoked if There Is Specific Entry In The Schedule

In DAMINI AND ANOTHER vs JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, the question before the Supreme Court was 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?

The appellants are the widow and son of one Pradeep Bhai Patel who worked as a driver of a bus. The deceased died from electrocution during the course of his employment. The appellants filed an application under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 bclaiming Rs.22,68,000/- towards damages which was resisted on the ground of limitation among other grounds.

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. 

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. 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.

The Supreme Court rejecting the claim of the appellants held that 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.

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.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more