The court upheld that minors have protections under S.6 of the Limitation Act, enabling them to file claims despite filing deadlines, particularly when negligence is established.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855).

2. On 26-2-1966 one sheo Ram Singh came in contact with a bare live overhead conductor of 11 K. W. which was lying on the ground having got snapped earlier in the night and got electrocuted. He was survived by his widow Smt. Bari Bitia and a minor son, Sheo Nath Singh. They filed a suit for recovery of the said compensation on the ground that the defendant Electricity Board, was negligent in maitaining the electric installation and in allowing the said overhead conductor to remain lying live for a long period. This suit was filed on 30-11-1968, that is, beyond the period of limitation. Sheo Nath Singh, minor, however, claimed the benefit of S.6 of the Limitation Act .

3. The suit was resisted by the Electricity Board on a variety of grounds. It was pleaded by the defendant Board that it was not guilty of any negligence, that the amount of compensation claimed was too excessive, and that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the Board, and that the amount claimed by way of compensation was not excessive. It, however, held that the suit was barred by time and consequently dismissed it.

5. Against that decision an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs urging that the trial court had erred in holding that the suit was barred by time. Before the appellate court below the Board contended that it was not guilty of any negligence and the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was excessive. During the pendency of the First Appeal the plaint was got amended by deleting the name of Smt. Bari Bitia from the array of the plaintiffs. The appellate court below held that the suit was within time inasmuch as the minor son of the deceased was entitled to the benefit of S.6 of the Limitation Act . It, however, concurred with the trial Court that the Board was guilty of negligence. It further held that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was an adequate compensation and that the widow and the minor son of the deceased were entitled to share that sum equally.

6. Aggrieved by that decision the Electricity Board has come up to this Court on second appeal. For the appellant it was urged that the said minor son of the deceased was not entitled to the benefit of S.6 of the Limitation Act and the appellate court below, therefore, erred in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. The accident as mentioned above occurred on 26-2-66 whereas the suit was filed on 30-11-1968. It was obviously filed beyond limitation unless the plaintiffs were given the benefit of S.6 of the Limitation Act . Learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that inasmuch as Sheo Nath Singh, minor and Smt. Bari Bitia his mother were jointly entitled to institute the suit and Smt. Bitia could give a discharge without the occurrence of Sheo Nath minor, the time would run against both of them from the date of the accident in view of the provisions of S.7 of the Limitation Act and S.6 of the Act would not apply.

7. The suit was filed under The Indian Fatal Accidents Act . Both the courts below have concurrently held that the appellant Board was negligent and the death of Sheo Ram Singh was caused by the neglect of the appellant. S.1A of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act provides that every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the deceased person and shall