The court held that claims for death due to wrongful acts are governed by the Fatal Accidents Act's limitation period, specifically Article 82 of the Limitation Act.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff - appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2013/25 th April, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), South Tripura, Udaipur in Money Suit No. 05 of 2012 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed holding that the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation. On merits also the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations made in the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is the widow, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons and plaintiff No.4 is the daughter and pro forma - defendant is the mother of the deceased, Arun Chandra Banik alias Arun Banik. According to the plaintiff the deceased was grazing his cattle on the other side of the border fencing with permission of the BSF authorities. At about 1.00 p.m. live high tension wire of 33 KV electricity of the Rajnagar Belonia line fell down upon the deceased, Arun Banik and as a result of which he suffered severe electric shock and burn injuries. Arun Banik was shifted to the Belonia hospital from where he was referred to the G.B.P. Hospital and admitted there on 11.08.2008. Unfortunately, Sri Arun Banik succumbed to his injuries at Agartala on 15.08.2009 at about 10.00 p.m.

3. According to the plaintiffs the deceased died due to the negligence of the electricity corporation in not maintaining it's high tension wires properly. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant did not properly perform their duties and did not maintain the 33 KV line properly and, therefore, were liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage suffered by them. The suit was filed on 12.07.2013. The learned trial Court on the issue of limitation held that the suit was governed by Art.82 of Schedule - I of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the limitation was 2(two) years from the date of death i.e. 15.08.2009 and the suit having been filed beyond the period of limitation was not maintainable.

4. Sri Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that this suit would be governed not by Art.82 but by the residual Art.113 and the limitation would be 3(three) years and therefore, the suit was filed within limitation. He has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 1994 (4) SCC 1 ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy and others, AIR 2000 SC 2083 , the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. K. V. Bhaskaran Nair and others, AIR 2003 Ker. 57 , judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.P. State Electricity Board and other v. Y. Venu Kumar and Ors., reported in 2006 (3) ALD 710 : AIR 2006 (NOC) 949 (AP) and another Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in K. K. Vava and others v. Kerala State Electricity Board and others (RFA No. 149 of 2013) delivered on 31st March, 2014. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Cuttack v. Raibari Chhatria and others (RFA No. 9 of 2006) delivered on 26.02.2013. 2013 AAC 1445 (Ori).

5. On the other hand, Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is a claim arising out of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and therefore, Art.82 squarely applies to the case and the limitation is 2(two) years and not 3(three) years. In support of her contention Ms. S. Deb Gupta has relied upon the judgment of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court in State of Tripura and others v