Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 2624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal
RSA No.2794 of 2010(O&M)
State of Haryana & Ors
v.
Ms. Piyoja Saini & Anr
{Decided on 28/08/2018}
Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate, for the appellants (in RSA No.208 of 2011) for the respondents (in RSA NO.2794 of 2010)
Limitation – Legal Disability – Limitation gets extended and does not begun to run till the disability ceases to exist
Accident – Just Compensation – Principles laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, can be invoked to calculate damages payable under the Fatal Accident Act
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963, S.6 – Legal Disability – Limitation gets extended and does not begun to run till the disability ceases to exist. (Para 16)
As per Section 6 of the Act of 1963, period of limitation gets extended upto the date when the limitation expires after the disability has ceased to exist. If the argument of learned counsel for the State is accepted, it would lead to absurd results. As per learned counsel for the State, the limitation began to run from 17.08.1997 and ended on 16.08.1999 i.e. two years from the date of accident and thereafter it would begun to run from the date disability ceases to exist i.e. on the date when the youngest attains the age of majority and for 2 years thereafter. This is not the intention of the Act. (Para 15)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963, S.6 – Legal Disability – A suit filed by the minors before attaining majority but after the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be barred by time. (Para 9)
(C) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – Accident – Just Compensation – Principles laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act, can be invoked to calculate damages payable under the Fatal Accident Act. (Para 18)
(D) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – Accident – Just Compensation – Deceased while driving motorcycle struck to tree which was bend and was hanging over road upto the height of 4 ft – State held liable to pay as forest department failed to remove tree hanging over the road – Total Compensation of Rs.8.86 lakhs awarded with 9% interest per annum. (Para 20)
(E) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – Accident – Limitation – Deceased died as he struck a tree hanging over road upto height of 4 ft – Deceased left behind two minors and a widow – Claim petition filed by minors after expiry of limitation but before attaining majority – Claim petition held to be within limitation – Limitation Act, 1963, S.6. (Para 13)
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. - This judgment shall disposed of Regular Second Appeal No.2794 of 2010 and Regular Second Appeal No.208 of 2011, as both have been filed by plaintiffs as well as by the defendants, arising from a single suit, disposed of by a common judgment by the learned trial court as well as by the learned first appellate court.
2. Plaintiffs, namely, Piyoja Saini and Akshit Saini, minor children of late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini, filed a suit under Section 1-A of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for grant of compensation to the plaintiffs. The suit was filed by both the minors through their mother Smt. Anju Saini widow of late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini. It is the suit of the plaintiffs that their father late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini died in an accident on 17.08.1997 when he was coming to home from his business on a motorcycle. He died due to the fact that a kikkar tree which had bent, hanging on the road from the last 15 days from the date of accident, caused the accident. It is the case of the plaintiffs that 15 days before the accident dated 17.08.1997, there was storm and due to that kikkar tree planted by the defendants i.e. the Forest Department had bent and started hanging on the road at the height of 4 feet causing obstruction to the traffic. However, the officials did not remove the same and the deceased late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini who was coming on a motorcycle at 8.00 PM had struck against the aforesaid tree because of bending and starting hanging above the road. Late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini fell down and sustained injuries on his chest, mouth and left hand and thereafter was admitted in Civil Hospital, Shahabad from where he was referred to Post Graduate Institute of Medical, Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, and he succumbed to his injuries. FIR was registered against the forest officials on 19.08.1997. The suit was instituted on 18.01.2003.
3. The State of Haryana contested the suit and pleaded that motorcycle had not struck with the tree as there was no tree which had bended and started hanging on the road. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs have made a false story and got registered the case against the Forest Officials. It was further pleaded that the representation filed by the plaintiffs had rightly been rejected vide order dated 21.08.1998. The suit was also claimed to be barred by time. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs are not indigent persons therefore the suit is not maintainable without payment of the court fee.
4. Learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence dismissed the suit, whereas the learned first appellate court reversed the judgment passed by the learned trial court and decreed the suit by awarding a sum of Rs.5,76,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. In the considered opinion of this court, following substantial questions of law arise in the present case:-
(i) Whether a suit filed by the minors before attaining majority but after the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1963’) would be barred by time?
(ii) Whether while calculating the damages the guidelines issued by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while deciding claim under the Motor Vehicle Act can be applied?
6. Both the courts have found the suit to be within limitation. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana could not point out any error in appreciation of evidence by the learned first appellate court while returning the finding that the tree had started hanging on the road dangerously due to storm at the height of 4 feet belonged to the Forest Department and late Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini, father of the plaintiffs had died as he had struck against the aforesaid tree and fell down and sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the St
