The court affirmed that suits under the Fatal Accidents Act are subject to a specific two-year limitation period as established by Article 82 of the Limitation Act.

J U D G M E N T

Joseph, J.

Appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed a suit, claiming compensation. The suit stands dismissed on the ground of limitation. The suit was filed on 8.3.1988.

2. It is specifically averred in paragraph 2 that the suit is laid under Sections 1A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act. It is stated that when the deceased was returning home by the road on the western side of Annamanada Temple belonging to the Cochin Devaswom Board, he was entangled in a coiled broken live wire charged with electricity and he was electrocuted to death. It is further alleged that if the respondent and its hierarchy of skilled workers including engineers had taken sufficient care and precautions and provided safeguards as prescribed by the statutes and rules made thereunder and followed the instructions and orders of the Electrical Inspectorate of the Kerala State, the accident and the tragic death would not have occurred.

3. A sum of Rs.2,69,500/- was claimed. The A.S.729/1994 2 respondent joined issue by filing a written statement. Besides denying the case of negligence, it is averred that the suit is barred by limitation. The court proceeded to answer the issue of limitation against the appellants. The reasoning is as follows : The alleged incident resulting in death took place on 7.4.1978. The suit is filed on 8.3.1988. The contention taken before the court below was that one of the plaintiffs was a minor at the time of the incident and he attained majority on 3.11.1985 and therefore, the suit filed after the 7th plaintiff had attained majority, was not barred. In other words, the appellants invoked the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act. The trial court found that the date of birth of the 7th appellant is 3.11.1967, he attained majority on 3.11.1985, under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for the suit of this nature is two years and under Sections 6 and 7, even if applicable, the disability of the 7th plaintiff ceased on 3.11.1985 and hence the suit should have been instituted before 3.11.1987, but, the suit has been instituted on 8.3.1988.

A.S.729/1994 3 Hence it is found that the suit is barred by limitation. In view of the finding of limitation, the trial court did not answer the other issues before it.

4. In the appeal memorandum, the contention which is taken is that the correct Article, which would be attracted is Article 113 of the Limitation Act, and not Article 82. The further contention raised is that all the issues should have been answered.

5. We heard learned counsel for the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Article 82 will not apply and Article 113 will apply. We are of the view that there is no merit in the contention. Article 82 reads as follows :

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By executors Two years The date of death of administrators of the or representatives under the person killed.

Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855)

A.S.729/1994 4 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 113, on which reliance is placed, provides as follows :

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of suit period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any suit for which no period Three years When the right of limitation is provided to sue accrues.

elsewhere in this Schedule -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Article 113 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for which period of limitation is not specifically prescribed otherwise. Therefore, the question to be considered is wheth