Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Fatal Accident Claims: Damini vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 744

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and R. Banumathi, J.

Can a claim for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 be filed after two years from the date of death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving the tragic death of a bus driver due to electrocution. The Court clarified the applicable limitation period for such claims, settling a dispute between the claimants and the electricity distribution company. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, with the opinion authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Case Background

The appellants, Damini (widow) and her son, are the legal heirs of Pradeep Bhai Patel, who worked as a bus driver. On 14th September 2008, while on duty, Pradeep Bhai Patel was electrocuted when a naked electricity wire came into contact with him while he was on the rooftop of the bus, attempting to retrieve passenger luggage. He fell from the roof and was declared dead at the hospital. The cause of death was determined to be electrocution.

The appellants filed a claim for damages of Rs. 22,68,000 under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, before the District Judge, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. The respondents, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, contested the claim, primarily on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The District Judge, Jaisalmer, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants, holding that it was barred by limitation. The District Judge applied Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a limitation period of two years for claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The High Court also upheld the decision of the District Judge.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

✓ Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855: This section allows the family of a person who dies due to a wrongful act, neglect, or default to claim compensation. It states:

“[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.”

✓ Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article specifies a two-year limitation period for suits filed by executors, administrators, or representatives under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It states:

“PART VII- SUITS RELATING TO TORT
Description of
suitPeriod 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).T wo years. The date of
the death of
the person
killed.”

✓ Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This is a residuary article that provides a three-year limitation period for suits for which no specific period is prescribed elsewhere in the schedule. It states:

“PART X-SUITS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED PERIOD
Description of
suitPeriod 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.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants contended that the claim petition filed before the District Judge should be treated as a civil suit for damages.
• They argued that since the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, does not prescribe a specific limitation period, the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should apply.
• The appellants submitted that under Article 113, the limitation period is three years from the date when the right to sue accrues, which in this case is the date of death (14.09.2008).
• Therefore, since the claim petition was filed on 05.09.2011, it was within the prescribed limitation period.
• The appellants relied on the decision in Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1994] 4 SCC 1 to justify the application of Article 113.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically provides a two-year limitation period for suits under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
• They contended that once a specific period of limitation is prescribed in the schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, the residuary Article 113 cannot be invoked.
• The respondents maintained that the claim petition was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. What is the period of limitation for filing a suit or claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions and case laws:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855: The provision under which the claim was filed.
• Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The specific provision for limitation for suits under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which specifies a two-year limitation period.
• Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The residuary provision for suits where no specific limitation is prescribed, which specifies a three-year limitation period.

Case Laws:

• Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1994] 4 SCC 1: The appellants relied on this case, but the Supreme Court distinguished it, stating that it pertained to a claim of damages for loss due to damage to property and not death, and hence, not relevant to a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963* specifically applies to suits under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and therefore, the limitation period is two years from the date of death.
• The Court distinguished the case of Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1994] 4 SCC 1* stating that it was not a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and hence, not applicable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that the claim was barred by limitation, considered the following:

• The tragic circumstances of the death of Pradeep Bhai Patel due to electrocution.
• The fact that the accident occurred in 2008.
• The existence of a scheme under the respondent for providing compensation to victims of such accidents, which provides a one-time compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs.

Based on these considerations, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was that while the legal position regarding limitation was clear, the specific facts of the case warranted the use of its extraordinary powers to grant relief. The Court noted that the accident was tragic, and the family was entitled to some compensation. The Court also took into account the fact that there was a compensation scheme in place, even though the claim was time-barred.

The Court stated, “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 Court also noted, “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.”

Further the court stated, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• The limitation period for filing a suit or claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, is two years from the date of death of the person.
• Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically applies to suits under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
• The residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, cannot be invoked when a specific limitation period is prescribed.
• The Supreme Court can invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation in appropriate cases, even if the claim is time-barred.
• This order is not to be treated as a precedent and is specific to the facts of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the first respondent, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, to pay Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation to the first appellant (widow) within two months from the date of the judgment. If the payment is not made within two months, the appellants will be entitled to an interest of 12% per annum from the date of the accident, and the officers responsible for the delay will be personally liable for the same.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the limitation period for filing a suit or claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, is two years from the date of death, as specified in Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This judgment clarifies the law on the limitation period for such claims and reinforces the principle that when a specific limitation period is prescribed, the residuary provision cannot be invoked.

Conclusion

In the case of Damini and Another vs. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, is two years from the date of death, as specified in Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Although the claim was time-barred, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs to the appellants, considering the tragic circumstances of the case and the existence of a compensation scheme. This judgment clarifies the law on the limitation period for such claims while also demonstrating the Court’s willingness to provide relief in deserving cases using its extraordinary powers.