The main legal point established is the application of sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to extend the period of limitation for suits filed by minors, and the liability of defendants for negligence in maintaining the electricity supply.

Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants are the original defendants who are aggrieved by the decree passed by the first Appellate Court thereby directing the said defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondents – plaintiffs herein by way of compensation.

3. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that one Jabbarshaha was their father and husband of respondent No. 5 herein. They had one more brother namely Shabbirsha. The family used to do agricultural work and they were residing at Akot. It is their case that on 9-6-1990 when their father and brother Shabbirsha had gone to the field of one Jaywantabai, a live wire touched the body of Shabbirsha due to which he fell down. Their father tried to remove the said wire with a wooden stick. Both of them suffered an electric shock resulting in their death. On that basis, their mother for herself and as their natural guardian filed suit seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the appellants –original defendants. The defendants did not file any written statement. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 5 and a witness from the Electricity Inspector’s Office. One witness was examined by the defendants. The trial Court held that the suit that was filed on 27-10-1994 was barred by limitation and hence dismissed the same. The first Appellate Court after holding that the suit was filed within limitation found that the defendants were negligent in maintaining the electricity supply which resulted in the accidental deaths. The suit was accordingly decreed and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @6% per annum came to be awarded. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed.

4. The following substantial question of law arises for consideratio: “Whether the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extend the period of limitation for filing the suit seeking monetary compensation?”

5. Shri S.V. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court had rightly held the suit to be barred by limitation. Though the suit was filed on 27-10-1994, it was actually registered on 21-11-2001 inasmuch as the plaintiffs had sought permission to sue as indigent person. According to him, the suit would have to be treated as being actually filed on 21-11-2001. It was then submitted that the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that by virtue of provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the said Act) the suit was within limitation. According to him, the plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 were major when the suit was registered. These plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within a period of one year as required by Article 72 of the said Act. As the incident in question had taken place on 9-6-1990, the suit was barred by limitation. He therefore submitted that no relief could have been granted to the plaintiffs. Without prejudice, it was submitted that the amount of compensation granted was on higher side. The learned Counsel however fairly pointed out that as per the decisions in The Electricity Board, U.P. State vs. Sheo Nath Singh and anr., AIR 1976 Allahabad 118, Sardar Vijaysingh Rao Ghorpade vs. Jeewan Lal Ram Das Jaiswal, AIR 1963 MP 100 and Smt. Usha Rani Banerjee and others vs. Premier Insurance Company Ltd. Madras and others, AIR 1983 Allahabad 27, the limitation would commence after the disability as contemplated by section 6 of the said Act would come to an end.

6. Shri U.J. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the first Appellate Court rightly held that in view of provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the said Act, the period of limitation of one year stood extended. According to him, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were minors even when the suit was registered and therefore the Appellate Court correctly applied the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the said Act for extending the perio