Anjana Sarkar And Ors vs Managing Director And Ors

abc Normal abc 2 1 2020-10-07T07:22:00Z 2020-10-07T07:22:00Z 1 1019 5814 48 13 6820 12.00

false false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;}

[1] Heard Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] This appeal has been filed by the wife of the deceased who died out of electrocution. The suit was registered as TS (FA) 17 of 2000.

[2.1] The brief facts are that on 24.04.2000 at about 5.30/6.00 am while Ratan Sarkar and his mother Smti. Sarkar went to the bank of Khowai River to relieve of the call of nature, suddenly Smti. Sarkar came into contact with electrical live wire lying on the earth and then and there Smti. Sarkar fell down on the earth. On her shout, her son Ratan Sarkar, the deceased herein, had rushed to the spot to save her but, he was also electrocuted and subsequently, both of them died.

[3] Thereafter, the daughter-in-law of Smti. Sarkar had filed a petition under Fatal Accident Act, claiming compensation but, the maintainability of the claim petition filed by the wife of deceased Ratan Sarkar under the relevant provisions of Fatal Accident Act was questioned by both the Electric Department and the State that the claim petition was not maintainable and it was pending for disposal for many years. Lastly, Hon'ble High Court had observed that the claim petition under Fatal Accident Act was not maintainable but, directed all the claimants to institute appropriate suit before the competent Court of jurisdiction and also directed to return all the plaints before those courts. Accordingly, the instant suit was returned. A fresh plaint was filed which was registered with Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala being Money Suit No. 43 of 2008. It reveals that "the suit arose as per return of the plaint by the learned District Judge by an order dated 19.03.2007 in T.S. (FA) 17 of 2000".

[4] After being summoned, the State has also filed a petition to strike off their names. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., (TSECL for short) had contested the suit by filing written statement. The learned trial Judge framed issues and on the basis of these issues, evidences of the parties were recorded. After completion of recording of evidence, the learned Judge had heard the counsel appearing for the parties at length. Having due regard to the evidence brought on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judge had decreed the suit to the tune of Rs. 6,91,200/- but the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Hence, this appeal before this Court with the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2016 and 02.01.2017 respectively.

[5] Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Civil Judge ought not to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, for the reason that, the suit was protected under Section-14 of the Limitation Act. Initially a claim application was filed under the Fatal Accident Act, but after its final adjudication, it was revealed that the nature of the suit does not attract the Fatal Accident Act and for that, the same was returned to the appropriate Court of jurisdiction for adjudication.

[6] Today, none appears on behalf of the TSECL. However, Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appears on behalf of the State respondents and vehemently argued that the suit was barred by limitation Act because, it is a money suit and for institution of money suit, the maximum period of limitation is 2(two) years from the date of cause of action. Since Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing TSECL has not appeared before the Court, I have gone through the written statement filed by the TSECL, and for the purpose of reference, para.8 of the written statement is reproduced herein below:

"8. That, the plaintiffs did not file any petition for accepting the plaint beyond the period of limitation. Section-14 of the Limitation Act will not apply in case of return the plaint. Learned District Judge returned the plaint with an endorsement to submit the same before the competent civil court. This endorsement does not indicate to consider the suit as per Section-14 of the Limitation Act due to filing in the wrong forum as there is a specific provision under Order-7 Rule-10A of C.P.Code for filing the plaint after returned from any other court. So, without any specific provision or petition the instant suit cannot be considered as filed within time following the Section-14 of the Limitation Act."

[7] Further, in the written statement they have stated that TSECL was not negligent at all because the deceased came in contact with the hook line. It reveals from the record that the learned District Judge returned the plaint on 19.03.2007 for filing the same before the ordinary court of civil jurisdiction. The appellant had filed the suit on 08.05.2007 along with a petition to declare the plaintiffs as pauper being Money Suit (Pauper) 09 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1, Agartala Tripura West. Later on, petition for pauper was allowed. The learned trial Judge has held that since a fresh suit was instituted after 42 days of the return of the plaint, the suit was barred by law of limitation.

[8] Law of limitation prescribes two years for institution of money suit from the date of cause of action. In the instant case, the initial petition under Fatal Accident Act was found to be not maintainable and it was returned on 19.03.2007, so, cause of action to file the money suit arose on 19.03.2007 and from that date the limitation will be counted. This court finds that the suit was filed after 42 days after return of the plaint. The earlier period, that took years' time for decision as stated above is protected by Section-14 of the Limitation Act and for this reason, I repel this contention of the TSECL that the instant suit is barred by law of limitation.

[9] Next, the ground taken by the TSECL that the deceased came into contact with the hook line and for that the concerned department was not negligent at all, is not tenable in law. It is the duty of the electric corporation to look after such facts and corporation is under obligation to remove hook lines and book the culprits, so that no person can came into contact with the hook line but, they failed to perform their obligation. As such, the TSECL is found to be negligent.

[10] For the reason as stated above, the appeal is allowed and accordingly, the suit is decreed. The appellants are entitled to get the compensation at Rs. 6,91,200/- along with interest from the date of institution of the instant money suit as determined by the learned Civil Judge. It is further directed that the amount shall be paid within a period of three months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Send down the L. C. Records.