Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In specific cases like work-related injuries, the Workmen's Compensation Act prescribes its own limitation period, generally six months from the date of the accident or injury ["COMMISSIONERS FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA VS PRAYAG RAM - Calcutta"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Sipra Banik and Others v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited and Others - Gauhati"]- ["Rajendra Singh VS Nishan Singh Pisar - Rajasthan"]- ["MYS_MLRH_2006_2_MLRH_310"]- ["Sipra Banik VS Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited - Tripura"]- ["COMMISSIONERS FOR PORT OF CALCUTTA VS PRAYAG RAM - Calcutta"]- ["Antony Sahaya Sundar VS K. Vijayan - Madras"]
If you've suffered physical injuries due to someone else's actions, seeking compensation is a critical step toward recovery. But what if you wait too long to file your claim? In India, the Limitation Act, 1963 sets strict deadlines for such suits, potentially barring your case forever. A common question arises: what is the period of limitation for claiming compensation against a person who caused physical injuries under Limitation Act, 1963?
This blog post breaks down the general rule, key judicial interpretations, exceptions, and practical advice. While this provides general insights based on legal precedents, it's not a substitute for professional legal advice—consult a lawyer for your specific situation.
Under the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for claiming compensation for physical injuries is generally three years from the date the cause of action accrues, which is typically when the injury occurs. This falls under the residuary provision in Article 113, applying to suits not specifically covered elsewhere in the Schedule. Swaraj Motors Private Ltd. VS T. R. Raman Pillai - 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 248Sathy W/O Subramanian VS Dileep I. S S/O Sreedharan I. K. - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 536
Courts have clarified that injury to the person means a physical injury, and the limitation clock starts ticking from the date on which the injury is caused. Swaraj Motors Private Ltd. VS T. R. Raman Pillai - 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 248 As one key judgment notes:
The expression 'to the person' in Art.22 means to the body of a person; and an injury or wrong to the person means a physical injury... The time begins to run from the date on which the injury is caused. Swaraj Motors Private Ltd. VS T. R. Raman Pillai - 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 248
This residuary three-year period applies because personal injury claims (excluding death or specific statutes) aren't governed by dedicated articles like those for contracts or property wrongs. Rajendra Singh VS Nishan Singh Pisar - 2007 Supreme(Raj) 443
Early debates centered on whether Article 22 (for torts causing injury) exclusively applies or if the residuary Article 113 governs. Courts have held that Article 22 covers physical injuries broadly, not just malfeasance, but the period remains three years:
We are therefore, constrained to hold that Art.22 applies to a suit for compensation for any injury to the person, other than death, and the time begins to run from the date on which the injury is caused. Swaraj Motors Private Ltd. VS T. R. Raman Pillai - 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 248
In practice, both lead to the same three-year timeline from accrual. For suits arising from personal injury not caused by death, Article 113 confirms: period of limitation for such suit is three years from date of accrual of cause of action. Rajendra Singh VS Nishan Singh Pisar - 2007 Supreme(Raj) 443
The emphasis is clear: the period starts at injury occurrence, not discovery or knowledge of full extent. Swaraj Motors Private Ltd. VS T. R. Raman Pillai - 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 248
While three years is the norm, certain scenarios modify this:
If injuries result in death, Article 82 prescribes two years for suits under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The residuary Article 113 cannot override specific provisions:
Once a specific period of limitation is referrable to any of the entries in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, then the residuary Article 113 cannot be invoked. DAMINI VS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED - 2017 7 Supreme 373
Sections 6 and 7 extend time for minors or persons under disability. For instance, in negligence cases causing deaths, minors' suits benefit from extensions:
Whether the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extend the period of limitation for filing the suit seeking monetary compensation? Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. , Mumbai VS Jamirshaha Jabbarshah - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2263
The court upheld the claim as within time due to minority. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. , Mumbai VS Jamirshaha Jabbarshah - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 2263
Rarely, like in electrocution deaths, courts may find a continuous cause of action, avoiding strict bars. Section 2(j) defines periods, but ongoing negligence can extend timelines. Rameshwari W/o Hemant Dhruw VS Junior/Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board - 2024 Supreme(Chh) 4
Medical negligence, like failed tubectomies, often reverts to Article 113 if no specific bar. RADHESHYAM VS STATE OF M P - 2008 Supreme(MP) 1068
Consider these scenarios:
International echoes, like Malaysia's Limitation Act, mirror India's three-year rule for personal injury. SA ADI IBRAHIM vs LIEW HAN SINSAADI IBRAHIM & ANOR vs LIEW HAN SIN & ANOR
To protect your rights:- Act Promptly: File within three years of injury—delays are fatal.- Document Everything: Medical records, witness statements prove accrual date.- Check Exceptions: Minors, fraud, or statutes may extend time (Section 5 for condonation).- Seek Specialist Advice: Tort lawyers can assess if Article 113 or specifics apply.
In conclusion, while the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a clear three-year window for most physical injury claims, nuances like disabilities or specific torts demand careful review. Victims should prioritize timely action to secure justice. This overview draws from established precedents but may not apply universally—always consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance.
#LimitationAct1963 #PersonalInjuryLaw #IndiaLegal
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. ... Coming to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, Limitation Act).....
A bare reading of Article 79 also shows that it provides limitation for suits claiming compensation on account of distress and distress doesnt mean physical injury to person. ... (14). ... In view of the above, it is held that the suit for compensation on the ground of causing injury by other, no period of limitation has been provided under the Limitation Act, 1963 and, therefore, are covered by A....
A bare reading of Article 79 also shows that it provides limitation for suits claiming compensation on account of distress and distress doesn’t mean physical injury to person. ... 14. ... In view of the above, it is held that the suit for compensation on the ground of causing injury by other, no period of limitation has been provided under the Limitation Act, 1963 and, therefore, are covered by Ar....
The term “period of limitation” has been defined in Section 2(j) of the Act as the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application in the Schedule of Limitation Act; further, “prescribed period’ means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation ... He would further submit as per Section 2 (j) of the Limitation #HL_STAR....
(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of [the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)] shall be applicable to appeals under this section. 22. ... Accordingly, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation under the Said Act, 1923. 4. It is further averred that the claim application was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation#HL_E....
Jolly (1963) 2 CB 683) remarked, 'the assessment of damages has never been an exact science; it is essentially practical'. ... 13 The damages for vehicular accidents are in the nature of compensation in money for loss of any kind caused to any person. ... Compensation is an act which a Court orders to be done, or money which a Court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another in order that thereby t....
IX of 1908) has been repealed and replaced by the Indian Limitation Act 1963 (Act No. 36 of 1963) which came into force on 1 January 1964) (see p. 11 of Sanjiva Row's The Limitation Act, 1963 vol. 1, 7th edn, 1973). ... At p. 241, the Court stated "By virtue of item 92 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act (Cap. 14), the period of limitation for an action for compensati....
period" ie, extend the period of limitation.[7] Item 92 of the Schedule to the Ordinance provides that "for compensation for injury to the person including where death results from such injury, compensation to the family of the deceased", the period of limitation shall be three years from the day when ... At p. 241, the court stated "By virtue of item 92 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act (Cap. 14), the #HL_STAR....
period" ie, extend the period of limitation.[7] Item 92 of the Schedule to the Ordinance provides that "for compensation for injury to the person including where death results from such injury, compensation to the family of the deceased", the period of limitation shall be three years from the day when ... At p. 241, the court stated "By virtue of item 92 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act (Cap. 14), the #HL_STAR....
At p. 241, the Court stated "By virtue of item 92 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act (Cap. 14), the period of limitation for an action for compensation for injury to the person is three years from the day when the injury was committed. ... IX of 1908) has been repealed and replaced by the Indian Limitation Act 1963 (Act No. 36 of 1963) which came into force on 1 January 1964) (see p. 11 of Sanj....
The question is : which of these three articles applies to a suit for compensation for wrongful arrest. Article 80 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with suits for compensation for wrongful seizure of movable property under legal process, whereas Article 90 deals with suits for compensation for injury caused by an injunction wrongfully obtained. A vessel is a movable property and cannot sail out of the harbour as a result of the arrest. Article 113, on the other hand, is a residuary article providing for suits for which no period of limitation is provided el....
4. The following substantial question of law arises for consideratio: “Whether the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extend the period of limitation for filing the suit seeking monetary compensation?”
Therefore, when a suit for compensation is filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the same has to be filed within the period of two years as prescribed under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 11. Part VII of the Schedule deals with the “suits relating to tort”. In the instant case, the action for damages is brought under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
Under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, period of limitation for filing a claim against a carrier for compensation is three years and the time begins from the date when the loss or injury occurs. The said decision interprets Article 31 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (corresponding to Article 11 of the Limitation Act, 1963). Counsel for the Plaintiffs had relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bootamal Vs. Union of India, Reported in, AIR 1962 SC 1716. It is a case of both parties that Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to the present ....
So far as article 72 of Limitation Act 1963 is concerned, it is not for compensation for any injury to person. In the Limitation Act 1963, there is no separate article for computation for any injury to the person. In this case also appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- of account of death of Kailashbai. ( 26. ) IN view of the aforesaid position of law and keeping in view the fact that the claimants preferred to continue the pregnancy after the operation, in the opinion of this court the State is not liable for payment of any amount of compensation towards....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
