[2026:RJ-JD:11331]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 172/2011 Barda S/o Pema, aged about 45 years, R/o Potla Khurd, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.

----Appellant Versus

1. Ajmer Vidyt Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through its Chairman, Ajmer Vidyt Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer.

2. Superintendent Engineer, AVVNL, Industrial Area, Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh.

3. Assistant Engineer (Rural), Ajmer Vidyt Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.

4. Shankar Lal Sharma (Sukhwel) S/o Onkar Lal Sukhwal, R/o Potlakalan, Tehsil-Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya Mr. Kaushik Suthar For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/03/2026

1. None appears for the respondents.

2. The present first appeal has been filed aggrieved of judgment/order dated 20.04.2009 passed by District Judge, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.177/2009 whereby the suit/claim petition as filed on behalf of the claimant for compensation in terms of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1855')

qua the death of his mother Nathi, stood dismissed.

3. The learned Trial Court rejected the claim petition on the count of it being delayed. The Court observed that there was no reasonable ground available to condone the delay.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Damini & Anr. Vs. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.; 2017 (9) SCC 443, submitted that even if the Court reaches to the conclusion that the claim petition was time barred, it can definitely direct the respondent Authorities to consider the case of the claimant for one time compensation of Rs.5 lacs in terms of the scheme of the Department, applicable to the appellant.

5. Heard the Counsel. Perused the record.

6. It is an admitted fact that the accident in question occurred on 17.06.2004 and the claim petition was filed on 12.01.2009. As held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Damini (supra), when a suit for compensation is filed under the Act of 1955, the same has to be filed within the period of two years as prescribed under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Herein, the suit was admittedly filed after a period of 5 years and hence, was rightly not entertained by the Court.

7. So far as the direction for compensation of Rs. 5 lacs is concerned, firstly, there is no averment regarding the same in the present appeal. Secondly, no fact of any such Scheme being in operation as of date, and the appellant being governed by any such Scheme, has been brought on record. Lastly, the Hon’ble Apex Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the case of Damini (supra) and the same therefore does not lay down any ratio. Furthermore, in Damini (supra), the Court specifically observed as under:-

“14. We make it clear that this order is passed under the peculiar facts of this case and hence, it is not to be treated as a precedent.”

8. In view of the above overall analysis, this Court is of the clear opinion that the claim petition being grossly delayed, was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court.

9. No case for interference is made out. Judgment/order dated 20.04.2009 is hereby affirmed. The present first appeal is hence, dismissed

10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (REKHA BORANA),J

199-manila/-