Muhamed Mustaaue, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.34/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Kattappana, who are the legal heirs of one Prasanth, who died in electrocution on 24.01.2006. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the parents and the third plaintiff is the brother of the deceased. The court below dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. Challenging the judgment and decree, this appeal is filed.

2. The deceased Prasanth was employed with the third defendant in the suit for doing decoration work on contract basis. On 24.01.2006, he, along with his co-workers were engaged by the third defendant, to remove the arch erected across Adimaly-Chinnar PWD Road at Kambilikandam. The arch was erected there in connection with the reception of the Minister for Electricity, who had come there to inaugurate a Sub Station of the KSEB at Kambilikandam. While the said Prasanth along with his co-worker Dinesh were removing the arch, they came into contact with a 11 KV overhead electric line, which passed across the road and consequently, Prasanth was electrocuted. His co-worker also sustained burn injury due to the electric shock. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs from the defendants. In the suit, besides the KSEB, the State of Kerala and the employer of the deceased Prasanth were arrayed as defendants. The State of Kerala was set ex parte.

3. The court below, after adverting to the pleadings and evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-. The court below entered into a definite finding, that is, on account of the negligence of the officials of the Board, the accident occurred resulting in the death of Prasanth. The court below also found that the third plaintiff in the suit, the brother of the deceased is not entitled to any compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as, the "Fatal Act").

4. The court below, however dismissed the suit on the question of limitation relying on Article 82 of the Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as, the "Act"). The court below was of the view that the claim for compensation under the Fatal Act is to be under Article 82 of the Act. The court below found that the suit was filed after two years from the date of incident. The court below also found that the plaintiffs had initially filed a suit before the Sub Court, Kottayam as indigent in O.P.No.5 of 2007 and the same was withdrawn as per the order of that court in I.A.No.523 of 2008 dated 19.02.2008 with a direction to present the suit before the proper court. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed the suit as indigent before the court below on 17.11.2008. Since there was no proper pleading in the plaint as to exclude the period involved in prosecuting the matter before a court, which did not have the jurisdiction to exclude the said period in terms of Section 14 of the Act, the court below did not grant any benefit to the plaintiffs for exclusion of that period under Section 14 of the Act. The incident occurred on 24.01.2006. The indigent O.P. was filed before the court below on 17.11.2008. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Bhaskaran Nair [2002 (3) KLT 324), wherein it was held that the KSEB is a statutory body and so, the suit claim is to be treated as one for compensation or damages on account of tortious act committed by the State and such a claim is governed by Article 113 of the Act. Article 113 of the Act provides three years' period for limitation. Another decision of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v.Subhadra [2013(4) KLT 17] also followed the Bhaskaran Nair's case (supra) by reckoning the period of limitation under Article 113 of the Act. Thus, the finding of the court below that the suit is barred by limitation is liable to be set aside as against the Board.

5. Onto the question regarding negligence of the Board, the court below discussed and analyse