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.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant- Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short, TSECL). None appears for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment dated 01.10.2019 and decree dated 30.10.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailasahar, Unakoti, Tripura, in connection with case no. Money Suit 04 of 2018.

3. The facts of the case, as elicited, are reproduced here-in-below:

(a) On 03.06.2016 while son of the plaintiff, namely, Jahir Ali, aged about 20 years, mason by profession and earning Rs. 400/- per day, at about 12.00 noon went to the pond of the plaintiff for taking bath, and when reached near the side of pond unfortunately fell down on earth due to electric shock and died on the spot. Thereafter, he was shifted to RGM hospital and there was no fault of the deceased and a written complaint was lodged to the Irani police station vide U.D. case no. 02 of 2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It is pleaded that the deceased was an unmarried and used to maintain his parents, brothers and sisters. It is further pleaded that the accident took place due to sheer negligence of Tripura State Electrical Corporation Limited (for short, 'TSECL') and for that TSECL is liable to pay compensation. Demand notice was issued under Section 80 CPC. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed the instant suit being the parents of the deceased.

(b) Having summoned, the defendants i.e. the appellants-herein, had contested the suit by filing written statement. After exchange of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

(iii) Whether on 03.06.2016 son of plaintiffs namely Jahir Ali, aged about 20 years, mason by profession earning Rs. 400/- per day died by electrocution due to electrical fault?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation? And if so what should be the quantum of compensation?

(c) Thereafter, evidences were recorded. The father of the deceased, namely, Hanif Ali alongwith 3 (three) other witnesses had adduced their evidences. All the witnesses had confirmed the aforesaid fact of electrocution. All the witnesses had categorically stated in their evidences that it was out of sheer negligence on the part of TSECL, the son of the deceased had died when he was going to take bath in the pond of the plaintiff.

(d) At the very outset, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has raised the question of maintainability of the suit itself. Accordingly, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the accident occurred on 03.06.2016, as alleged by the plaintiffs, but, in the notes prepared by the Sheristedar of the learned court, it is specifically written that 'the plaint is in form but, not properly stamped', and after signature of the court officer, the date is mentioned as 11.10.2018'. The seal of the office also shows that the plaint was filed on 11.10.2018 and I find the signature of the filing Advocate put the date of filing as on 11.10.2018'. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Article 82 of the LIMITATION ACT .

(e) On the other hand, the TSECL, had adduced evidences and stated that there was no actionable wrong on the part of TSECL for the alleged accident. Since the alleged accident had taken place near the pond of the plaintiffs, as such, they were the owners of the said pond and the said pond was in the jote land of the plaintiff, and if any accident occurred near the pond of the plaintiffs, then, it might have occurred due to ele