Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These appeals are at the instance of the fourth defendant in two different suits for compensation on account of electrocution.

2. O.S.No.677/2003 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam was filed by the father, mother, brothers and sister of the deceased Gireesh. O.S.No.678/2003 was filed by the father, mother and brother of the deceased Prabeesh. Both the suits were tried together and a compensation amount of Rs.3,23,000/- was awarded to the plaintiffs in each suit. Out of the total compensation, in each suit, the Kerala State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the “Board”, was directed to pay Rs.2,48,000/- and remaining Rs.75,000/- to be paid by defendant No.4. It is challenging the said judgment and decree, the fourth defendant filed these appeals.

3. The Board also had filed appeals against the above judgment and decree along with the applications for condonation of delay. This Court, by a common judgment in R.F.A.No.367/2007 and R.F.A.No.399/2009 on 19/03/2014 dismissed both the appeals on account of delay in filing the appeals.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/fourth defendant, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

5. The learned Senior Counsel, Shri M.C. Sen, who is appearing for the fourth defendant submits that the incident occurred on 29/08/2000 and the suits were filed only on 06/01/2003 and 23/01/2003 as I.O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2003 and in view of the period of limitation for filing a suit is two years from the date of death of a person under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, the suits ought to have been dismissed. The Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Bhaskaran Nair [2002 (3) KLT 324], Madan Gopal vs. Dr. Rugmini [1988 (2) KLT 442] and Lissie Hospital vs. Ajayakumar [2004 (1) KLT 344]. The learned Senior Counsel also refers to the differences of “claims” under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976.

6. Under the common law of England, death of a person did not offer a cause of action for damages in tort, which was essentially based on the maxim actiopersonalis moritur cum persona. English Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 recognised the rights of the dependants to plead for compensation. It also recognised the causes of action related to the deceased, which the deceased would be entitled if he would survive, to the representatives of the deceased for recovering any pecuniary loss to the estate of the deceased. Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 is, in fact, a verbatim reproduction of English Fatal Accidents Act, 1846. We have noticed in Anitha and others vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, TVM and others [2014 (2) KHC 114], the fundamental difference between the claim under Sections 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. As regards the claim under Section 1A, liability arises on account of death to the dependants and in the latter, liability arises on account of wrongful act caused to the deceased which would have been recoverable by him, had he been alive. The Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the “Kerala Act”, was an enactment to unify and amend law relating to survival of cause of action, liability of joint tortfeasers and liability in cases of contributable negligence in respect of torts. Section 2 of the Kerala Act provides that on the death of any person after the commencement of this Act, all causes of action subsisting against or vested in him shall survive against, or, as the case may be, for the benefit of, his estate. Under Section 5 of the Kerala Act, it is provided that rights conferred by the Act for the benefit of the estates of deceased persons shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any rights conferred on the dependants of the deceased persons by the Fatal Accidents Act. Kerala Act, in fact, covers the field “claim for damages for the loss to the e