Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and A.B. Pal, JJ.
Smt. Maya Rani Ghosh etc.
Vs.
State of Tripura and Ors.
Decided On: 31.01.2007
Headnote:
1. A claim for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, can only be made by instituting a 'suit' in a Court of competent jurisdiction or is the person, claiming compensation, in such a case, has the option of either making an application, in the Court of District Judge, seeking compensation or instituting an appropriate 'suit' in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction? 2. Where lies the origin of 'suit' or 'action'? 3. Is there any distinction between a 'suit' and an 'action' or whether the words, 'suit' and 'action', are two interchangeable words? 4. What is the effect of the English legal system of the Courts of 'common law' and the 'Courts of equity' has any bearing on the enactment of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, and if so, what is the effect thereof? 5. By following a system, which may not be entirely in accordance with the prescribed procedure of law, when Courts have passed orders for fairly long period of time and such orders have already been acted upon, whether the superior Court must necessarily upset such orders, when the errors, in the system, are brought to the notice of the superior Court or whether, in such cases, the maxim 'communis error facit jus' is applicable?
Fact of the Case:
In the present case, the appellants filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/- under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, (in short, 'the Act of 1855') for the death of their husband/father due to electrocution. The claim was resisted by the State respondents by filing written objection, wherein, maintainability of the claim petition was questioned without, however, assigning the grounds on which the maintainability of the petition had been so questioned. As the accident had taken place on 27-10-1989, when a truck, bearing registration No. TRL-3024, loaded with wooden logs and having the claimant's husband as a labour in the said truck, was entering into a saw mill, claimant's husband happened to touch an electric pole standing near the saw mill, which resulted into his death, the accident. having taken place, because of the fact that the said electric pole got electrocuted due to high voltage live electric lines. At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 40 years old, his income was about Rs. 1,500/-per month and he was the sole bread-earner of his family, which consisted of his wife, two daughters and three sons. Based on this claim application, Title Suit (FA) No. 4 of 1994 was registered.
Finding of the Court:
1. A person, who derives a right to claim compensation under the Act of 1855, must necessarily institute a 'suit' for obtaining such compensation. 2. The origin of 'suit' lies in the Courts of equity; whereas the origin of 'action' lies in the Courts of common law. 3. The words, 'suit' and 'action' have, thus, become gradually synonymous. A reference may be made to a catena of decisions, which bring out the difference between the two expressions, namely, 'suit' and 'action'. 4. The substantive right given to an aggrieved person to claim damages was, therefore, alternative, in England, meaning thereby that one could have either initiated an 'action' for damages, as understood in English law, in the Court of common law, or a 'suit' for damages, as understood in English law, in the Court of equity. 5. In India, with the introduction of the Codes of Civil Procedure, all civil actions became amenable to the civil Courts unless a class of such civil cases was taken out by the legislature and given to a tribunal or other forum for decision.
Issues: 1. Whether a claim for compensation, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, can be made by making a mere application, in the Court of District Judge, within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of 'action' has arisen or whether such a claim for compensation has to be made by instituting a 'suit' in a Court of competent jurisdiction or is the person, claiming compensation, in such a case, has the option of either making an application, in the Court of District Judge, seeking compensation or instituting an appropriate 'suit' in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction? 2. Where lies the origin of 'suit' or 'action'? 3. Is there any distinction between a 'suit' and an 'action' or whether the words, 'suit' and 'action', are two interchangeable words? 4. What is the effect of the English legal system of the Courts of 'common law' and the 'Courts of equity' has any bearing on the enactment of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, and if so, what is the effect thereof? 5. By following a system, which may not be entirely in accordance with the prescribed procedure of law, when Courts have passed orders for fairly long period of time and such orders have already been acted upon, whether the superior Court must necessarily upset such orders, when the errors, in the system, are brought to the notice of the superior Court or whether, in such cases, the maxim 'communis error facit jus' is applicable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A careful reading of Section 1-A of the Act of 1855 shows that with the enactment of this piece of legislation, the legal representatives or heirs of a person, who died of a wrongful act, neglect or default of another person, could, under the Act of 1855, either bring an 'action' or a 'suit' for damages. 2. The origin of 'suit' lies in the Courts of equity; whereas the origin of 'action' lies in the Courts of common law. 3. The words, 'suit' and 'action' have, thus, become gradually synonymous. A reference may be made to a catena of decisions, which bring out the difference between the two expressions, namely, 'suit' and 'action'. 4. The substantive right given to an aggrieved person to claim damages was, therefore, alternative, in England, meaning thereby that one could have either initiated an 'action' for damages, as understood in English law, in the Court of common law, or a 'suit' for damages, as understood in English law, in the Court of equity. 5. In India, with the introduction of the Codes of Civil Procedure, all civil actions became amenable to the civil Courts unless a class of such civil cases was taken out by the legislature and given to a tribunal or other forum for decision.
Final Decision: 1. A claim for compensation under the Act of 1855, can only be made by instituting a 'suit' in a Court of competent jurisdiction or is the person, claiming compensation, in such a case, has the option of either making an application, in the Court of District Judge, seeking compensation or instituting an appropriate 'suit' in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction? • No, a claim for compensation under the Act of 1855, can only be made by instituting a 'suit' in a Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. Where lies the origin of 'suit' or 'action'? • The origin of 'suit' lies in the Courts of equity; whereas the origin of 'action' lies in the Courts of common law. 3. Is there any distinction between a 'suit' and an 'action' or whether the words, 'suit' and 'action', are two interchangeable words? • The words, 'suit' and 'action' have, thus, become gradually synonymous. 4. What is the effect of the English legal system of the Courts of 'common law' and the 'Courts of equity' has any bearing on the enactment of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, and if so, what is the effect thereof? • The substantive right given to an aggrieved person to claim damages was, therefore, alternative, in England, meaning thereby that one could have either initiated an 'action' for damages, as understood in English law, in the Court of common law, or a 'suit' for damages, as understood in English law, in the Court of equity. 5. By following a system, which may not be entirely in accordance with the prescribed procedure of law, when Courts have passed orders for fairly long period of time and such orders have already been acted upon, whether the superior Court must necessarily upset such orders, when the errors, in the system, are brought to the notice of the superior Court or whether, in such cases, the maxim 'communis error facit jus' is applicable? • In such cases, the maxim 'communis error facit jus' is applicable.
A suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, must be instituted in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The act grants the right to claim damages through a formal civil suit, which involves filing a plaint and paying the requisite court-fee. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is generally presumed unless explicitly excluded by law, and the suit must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, which is two years from the date of death of the person killed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. Can a claim for compensation, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, (in short, 'the Act of 1855') be made by making a mere application, in the Court of District Judge, within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of 'action' has arisen or whether such a claim for compensation has to be made by instituting a 'suit' in a Court of competent jurisdiction or is the person, claiming compensation, in such a case, has the option of either making an application, in the Court of District Judge, seeking compensation or instituting an appropriate 'suit' in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction? Is there any distinction between a 'suit' and an 'action' or whether the words, 'suit' and 'action', are two interchangeable words? Where lies the origin of 'suit' or 'action'? Is the English legal system of the Courts of 'common law' and the 'Courts of equity' has any bearing on the enactment of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, and if so, what is the effect thereof? By following a system, which may not be entirely in accordance with the prescribed procedure of law, when Courts have passed orders for fairly long period of time and such orders have already been acted upon, whether the superior Court must necessarily upset such orders, when the errors, in the system, are brought to the notice of the superior Court or whether, in such cases, the maxim 'communis error facit jus' is applicable? These are some of the important questions, which the present Letters Patent Appeals have raised.
2. Before we deal with the questions passed above, we set out the material facts and various stages, which have led to the present Letters Patent Appeals.
LPA 08/2001
3. The appellant herein filed a petition in the Court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/- under the Act of 1855, the appellant's case being, in brief, thus: on 27-10-1989, when a truck, bearing registration No. TRL-3024, loaded with wooden logs and having the claimant's husband as a labour in the said truck, was entering into a saw mill, claimant's husband happened to touch an electric pole standing near the saw mill, which resulted into his death, the accident. having taken place, because of the fact that the said electric pole got electrocuted due to high voltage live electric lines. At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 40 years old, his income was about Rs. 1,500/-per month and he was the sole bread-earner of his family, which consisted of his wife, two daughters and three sons. Based on this claim application, Title Suit (FA) No. 4 of 1994 was registered.
4. The claim for compensation was resisted by the State respondents by filing written objection, wherein, maintainability of the claim petition was questioned without, however, assigning the grounds on which the maintainability of the petition had been so questioned. As the accident had taken place on 27-10-1989 and the claim was made in the year 1994, the claimant also made an application seeking condonation of delay in making the petition seeking compensation. No objection to this application for condonation of delay was raised by the respondents.
5. Following the evidence, which was adduced by the claimant, the learned District Judge passed an order, on 20-9-1996, styling this order as judgment granting a sum of Rs. 1,56,912/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the claimant. Aggrieved by the order, so made, the opposite parties preferred an appeal, which gave rise to FA No. 188/96.
6. In the appeal, it was submitted, on behalf of the appellants, before the learned single Judge, that a District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking compensation made under the Act of 1855 inasmuch as such compensation can be made only by instituting a 'suit' and upon payment of adequate court-fees thereon, It was also contended, on behalf of the appellants, that in the present case, statutory notice, under Section 80 of the CPC, hav
