Summary
The widow and son of an electrocuted bus driver filed a Fatal Accidents Act claim nearly three years after his death. The Court held that the specific two-year limitation under Article 82 governed, excluding the residuary three-year provision. In the peculiar circumstances it nevertheless awarded Rs. 7 lakh under Article 142, expressly without precedential effect.
Issues
- Whether a Section 1A Fatal Accidents Act suit was governed by Article 82 or residuary Article 113.
- Whether case-specific compensation should be awarded under Article 142 despite the limitation ruling.
Provisions considered
- Articles 82 and 113, Limitation Act, 1963Article 82 specifically prescribes two years from death for Fatal Accidents Act suits; the residuary three-year article cannot apply where a specific entry governs. (¶ 8–12)
- Section 1A, Fatal Accidents Act, 1855The family’s action for death caused by actionable wrong fell within the specific limitation entry for statutory fatal-accident claims. (¶ 11–12)
Held
- The claim filed on 5 September 2011 for death on 14 September 2008 was governed by two years from death under Article 82. Describing it as a civil damages suit did not attract Article 113. (¶ 6–11)
- Jay Laxmi Salt Works involved property damage, not a death claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, and did not support using residuary limitation here. (¶ 12)
- Having been informed of an applicable compensation scheme and considering the 2008 accident, the Court exercised Article 142 to grant Rs. 7 lakh. Payment was due within two months, failing which 12 per cent annual interest ran from the accident date and the officers responsible for delay were personally liable for that interest. The order was expressly confined to the peculiar facts and was not to be treated as precedent. (¶ 13–14)
Result
Appeal disposed of. First respondent directed to pay Rs. 7 lakh to the first appellant within two months, with the specified default-interest consequence. No costs; exceptional compensation order expressly non-precedential.