Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ.
Johan Lal Suryawanshi, S/o Bhagbat Suryawanshi - Appellants
Versus
The Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and ors. – Respondents
FA No.162 of 2022
Decided On : 25-09-2024
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 2(j), 3(2) – Appeal against dismissal of suit as time barred – Suit filed for compensation due to electrocution – Court held that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded for limitation purposes due to pandemic – The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the guidelines of the Supreme Court regarding limitation. (Paras 3, 9, 11)
(B) Court Fees – The objection regarding court fees was overruled as the court deemed it proper to hold that payment of court fees would be exempted under the notification dated 02.08.1986. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case: The appellants filed a suit on 12.09.2022 for compensation of Rs.22,44,000/- for the death of Ravi Suryawanshi due to electrocution on 24.06.2020. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court as time barred.
Findings of Court: The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration on merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was filed within the limitation period considering the pandemic-related exclusions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate the limitation period as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey J.
1.The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Filing No.466/2022, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed as time barred. (The parties herein shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.)
2.Brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.2022, the appellants/plaintiffs filed suit claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.22,44,000/- from the respondents/defendants for the death of Ravi Suryawanshi occurred due to electrocution. The deceased Ravi Suryawanshi was working as Mason and on 24.06.2020 the deceased along with friend Mason Chaitram Suryawanshi went to Kulipota for mason work, where during work, the foot of deceased slipped and he fell in the transformer, due to which he suffered electric shock and he was taken to District Hospital, Janjgir, where he declared dead. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26 years and he used to earn Rs.400/- per day. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 14.09.2022 dismissed the case of the appellants on the ground of limitation, against which the present appeal has been filed.
3.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs on the ground of limitation. while filing suit, it was specifically mentioned that due to pandemic Covid-19, the appropriate government had declared lockdown time to time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has registered Suo-Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 and the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been excluded for counting limitation for filing suit, appeal, revision or any application before the courts and in the instant case, the deceased died during pandemic period on 24.06.2020, therefore the limitation is going to be counted from 28.02.2022 for filing suit and therefore the suit filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs on 12.09 2022 is within limitation, as such the impugned order is illegal and against the provisions of the Limitation Act as well as guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.01.2022 passed in Misc Application No.21/2022 in suo motu WPC No.3/2020, this Court’s order dated 27.01.2022 passed in FA No.63/2021 in case of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited vs Smt. Hemlata Netam and others, and order dated 24.01.2024 passed in FA No.151/2023 in case of Rameshwari and others vs Junior Assistant Engineer and others.
4.Learned counsel for the respondents strongly oppose the submission made by the appellants’ counsel and jointly submit that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the case of the appellants on the limitation ground. The deceased Ravi Suryavanshi died on 24.06.2020 and the limitation for filing the suit had already expired on 23.06.2021, whereas the Hon’ble Apex Court extended the limitation for 90 days after 01.03.2022 as such the limitation would have expired on 30.05.2022 therefore the suit of the plaintiffs is highly time barred, thus this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further submit that the suit was filed by the appellants for compensation of Rs.22.44 Lakhs so in this appeal ad valorem court fee is required to be paid as such this appeal is not maintainable without paying the requisite court fees.
5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6.It is not disputed in this case that the deceased Ravi Suryavanshi died due to electrocution on 24.06.2020 and the appellants filed the case before the Trial Court on 12.09.2022.
7.The Hon’ble Apex Court held in Misc Application No.21/2022 in Para 5 as under:-
AI
The court clarified that the limitation period for filing suits was extended due to the pandemic, and the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit as time barred was incorrect.
The court held that claims for death due to wrongful acts are governed by the Fatal Accidents Act's limitation period, specifically Article 82 of the Limitation Act.
The suit for compensation under the Fatal Accident Act must be filed within two years from the date of death, as per Article 82 of the Limitation Act.
The court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the defendants could not raise a limitation defense not presented at trial, and that plaintiffs proved negligence in the electrocution case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied to establish negligence in cases of electrocution. The court also emphasized the liability o....
The court established that procedural defects should not defeat a just cause, emphasizing the importance of negligence in determining liability for damages.
The court upheld that minors have protections under S.6 of the Limitation Act, enabling them to file claims despite filing deadlines, particularly when negligence is established.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
