In negligence claims for death not under the Fatal Accidents Act, suits are governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, allowing a three-year filing period.

JUDGMENT :

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.

1. All these four appeals are filed by the appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 8 praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 27.08.2018 passed in R.A.No.13/2017, R.A.No.14/2017, R.A.No.15/2017 and R.A.No.16/2017 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raichur, (for short ‘the first appellate Court’).

2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for awarding compensation in respect of death of Yallavva, Chilakamma, Narasingamma and Jyoti, who had gone to graze the cattles near the Krishi Honda and when they had been to drink water, they fell down in Krishi Honda and died on the spot due to drowning, on 21.07.2007. The death of the said four children is due to negligent act of the defendants in not maintaining Krishi Honda properly with all safety measures, in order to avoid untoward incidents. The appellants herein have disputed their liability to pay the compensation. The trial Court in all the four suits has recorded evidence on both sides and decreed the suits by awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit, till realization. In the said suit, issue No.4 was with regard to bar of suit by limitation. The trial Court referring to Article 113 of the LIMITATION ACT , has held that, the suit is filed within three years from the date of death of the children and as per Article 113 of the LIMITATION ACT , the suit is filed within time and answered the said issue No.4 in the negative.

3. Aggrieved by the said Judgments of the trial Court, the defendants have filed four appeals in R.A.No.13/2017, R.A.No.14/2017, R.A.No.15/2017 and R.A.No.16/2017 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raichur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’). The first appellate Court has clubbed all the four appeals and passed common Judgment. The first appellate Court after hearing the arguments on both sides, has dismissed the four appeals. Challenging the said Judgments passed by the first appellate Court, the present four appeals are filed before this Court by the defendants. The said four appeals came to be admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit for compensation rejecting the contention of limitation relying on residuary Article 113 of LIMITATION ACT when there is specific Article dealing with limitation for suit filed seeking compensation ?

(ii) Whether the judgments of the Courts below are result of non-appreciation of material on record in its proper perspective?

4. Heard the arguments of Additional Advocate General for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that, the suits ought to have been filed within two years from the date of death and the Article 82 of the LIMITATION ACT would apply. She further submits that, when there is specific Article in the LIMITATION ACT , the residuary Article i.e. Article 113 is not applicable. All the four suits are filed beyond two years and therefore, the suits are barred by limitation. On these grounds, she prays to allow the appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that, the suits are not filed under FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT , 1855. The suits are filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC., invoking jurisdiction of the Courts under Section 9 of the CPC. He submits that, Article 82 of the LIMITATION ACT applies if an application is made under Section 1(a) of the FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT , 1855 and the said application has to be filed before the District Judge. In the case on hand, the