DAMINI AND ANOTHERversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER

                              [2017) 8 S.C.R. 938


A                         DAMINI AND ANOTHER
                                       v.
         MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN
                NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER
B                       (Civi!Appea!No.12851 of2017)
                            SEPTEMBER 14,2017
             (KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.I
            Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 82 under Part Vil of the Schedule
·C   and Art.113 under Part X of the Schedule - Limitation for filing
     suit/claim under the Fatal Accidents Act - When a bus reached a
     station, the driver climbed the rooftop of the bus to bring down the
     luggage of the passengers - While doing so, the driver came in
     contact with a live electricity wire - Due to electrocution, he fell
     down from the roof of the bus and died - Appellants i.e. widow and
D    son of the deceased filed application u/s. lA of the Fatal Accidents
     Act - Courts below dismissed the application holding that the claim
     should have been presented within two years from the death of the
     person -Appellants contended that petition filed before Courts below
     has to be treated as a Civil Suit for damages, and hence, it was the
 E   residuary entry, viz., Art.113 which should have been applied, in
     which case, limitation is of three years - Held: Part Vil of the
     Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for period of limitation
     with regard to suits relating to tort -Art.82 under the Part VJJ of the
     Schedule provides for a specific period of limitation, viz.• two years
     for a suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - Once
 F   a specified period of /imitation is referrable to any of the entries in
     the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, then residuary Art.113
     under Part X of the Schedule cannot be invoked - Therefore, the
     suit u!s.lA of the Fatal Accidents Act has to be filed within two
     years - However, in instant case, there was a scheme under the first
 G   respondent for providing compensation to the victims - Jurisdiction
      u/Art.142 of the Constitution invoked - The first respondent to pay
     Rs. 7 lakh as compensation to first appellant - Constitution of India
     -Art.142 - Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 - s.IA.
           Disposing of the appeal, the Court
 H         HELD: 1. Part VII of the Schedule to the Limitation Act,
                                  938
  DAMINI AND ANR. v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR                             939
       VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANR.

1963 deals with the "suits relating to tort'~. In the instant case, A
for a suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and
Article 82 provides for a specific period of limitation, viz., two
years from the date of death of the person. 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 B
prescribed under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 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.[Paras 8, 10 and 11) (941-G-H;
942-A-B)
                                                                            c
      2. However on a query as to whether there is a scheme
under the first respondent for providing compensation to the
victims, the standing Counsel informed 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. This is a fit case to invoke D
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of lndJa. The
First respondent is directed to pay Rs.7 lakh as compensation to
the first appellant. [Para 13) [943-C-D)

      Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (1994)              E
      4 SCC 1 : [1994) 2 SCR 644 - held inapplicable.

                         Case Law Reference

      [1994) 2 SCR 644           held inapplicabfo        Para 12
                                                                            F
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.12851
of2017.

      From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2015
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B.
CivilFirstAppealNo.189/2015.                                                G

      Balraj Dewan, Adv. for the Appellant.

       Puneet Jain, Ms.Christi Jain, Priyal Jain, Ms.Pratibha Jain, Advs.
for the Respondents.
                                                                            H
940             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 8 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted.
             2. What is the period oflimitation for filing a suit or claim under
      The Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is the issue arising for consideration in
      this case.
 B
          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,
 C ,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 by the doctors. The cause
   of death was the contact with the live electricity wire.
          4. The appellants filed an application under Section IA of the
 D Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 before the District Judge, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan
   claiming Rs.22,68,000/- towards damages. The claim was resisted on
   the ground oflimitation among other grounds.
            5. According to the respondents, under Article 82 ofThe Limitation
      Act, 1963, the claim should.have been presented within two years from
 E    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. lt 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
 F    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
 G 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 elf limitation deals with suits relating to tort.
      Article 82 is under Part VII. The same reads as follows:
 H
I.,




       DAMINI AND ANR. v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR                             941
        VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANR. [KURIAN, J.]

                 "PART VII- SUITS RELATING TO TORT                               A


        Description of        Period oflimiation       Times from which
           suit                                        period begin to run
                                                                                 B
          By executors,       Two years                  The date of the
        administrators                                 death of the person
             or                                                killed."
        representatives
           under the
          Indian Fatal                                                           c
         Accidents Act,
            1855
          (13 of 1855)

                                                                                 D
            9. Under Part X, Article 113 reads as follows:
          "PART X-SUITS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED
      PERIOD

                                                                                 E
        Description of        Period oflimiation       Times from which
           suit                                        period begin to run

          Any suit for          Three years              When the right
           which no                                      to sue accrues."
       period oflimiation                                                        F
          is provided
           elsewhere
        in this Schedule.                      '

                                                                                 G
             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
                                                                                 H
942            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 8 S.C.R.


A 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
B prescribed under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the instant
  case, the action for damages is brought under Section IA of the Fatal
  Accidents Act, 1855. The provision reads as follows:
            "[lA.J Suit for compensation to the family of a person for
            loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong.-
 c          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
 D          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
 E          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
 F          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
 G          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
      1(1994)4sec1
 H
  DAMINI AND ANR. v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR                               943
   VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANR. [KURIAN, J.]

 of period of limitation. Jay Laxml (supra) was not a case of death ofa 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 Laxml (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. B
 Therefore, the suit under Section IA of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855
 has to be filed 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 C
 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 ofltidia 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 D
 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.    E
       15. The appeal is disposed ofas above. There shall be no order as
to costs.

 Ankit Gyan                                             Appeal disposed of.