V. Anandan vs State of Kerala and Others

M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—Plaintiff''s (appellant''s) suit for damages was dismissed by the Sub-Judge, Kottarakkara, on the ground of limitation. Plaintiff who was working as a blue printer of Kallada Irrigation Project met with an accident on 17.2.1983 while on duty. The accident occurred when he opened a bottle containing ammonia. Immediately, the plaintiff was removed to District Hospital, Quilon. From there he was sent to Ophthalmic Hospital, Trivandrum, on 27.2.1983. He was treated as an in-patient for 48 days. He lost his right eyesight despite the treatment. He issued suit notice claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of compensation. In the suit the claim is limited to Rs. 50,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

Learned Sub-Judge held that the first defendant being the employer is bound to compensate the plaintiff for the injury sustained by him during the course of employment. The Sub-Judge also found that the compensation claimed is just and reasonable and that the plaintiff is entitled to get the said amount from the defendants. However, the suit was dismissed as the claim is barred by limitation.

Contention of the plaintiff is that the petition before the Government was disposed of by Exh. A-1 order dated 17.12.1987 granting ex gratia payment of Rs. 3,500/-and hence the period of limitation has to be reckoned from that date and not from the date of accident. Learned Government Pleader submitted that such a contention is not tenable as the plaintiff did not file the suit for compensation within three years of the date of accident. Government Pleader maintained that ex gratia payment cannot save the period of limitation which has commenced to run from the date of accident.

Under Article 113 of the Limitation Act the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within a period of three years. The right to sue accrued to the plaintiff on the date of accident. Merely because the plaintiff had submitted a representation before the Government and was waiting for a reply and as the Government chose to grant only ex gratia payment on 17.12.1987, it is indeed difficult to accept plaintiff''s contention that the period of limitation will have to be reckoned from the date of payment of the ex gratia payment. In the Chamber''s Twentieth Century Dictionary the meaning of ex gratia is given as below:

as an act of grace; as a favour, not out of obligation, and with no acceptance of liability.

As ex gratia payment can only mean payment as a matter of favour it cannot arrest the period of limitation. In a case where a person who is entitled to compensation did not initiate legal action and if by his inaction the right to sue gets barred he cannot turn around and say that he was expecting favourable orders from the Government on his representation and so the limitation runs only when his representation got a response from the Government. Such a contention can never be accepted as he willingly allowed the period to run out. Hopes and aspirations cannot arrest the statutory period of limitation. Plaintiff''s contention that he got only a pittance from the Government on his representation can hardly be a ground to save limitation.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.