Limitation Act | Suit For Compensation By Dependent Of Deceased Not Barred Under Article 82: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a suit filed by a dependent seeking compensation for the death of a family member is not barred by limitation under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the claim is based on an independent civil right and not under the Fatal Accidents Act.

Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "suit of the plaintiff is not governed by Article 82 of the Limitation Act; as the said provision is applicable to cases arising out of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The distinction is that the Fatal Accidents Act applies only to accidental or wrongful deaths by "neglect or default". Whereas Intentional murder constitutes a distinct and separate cause of action. In the case of murder or intentional homicide, the Courts have consistently held that the claim is an independent right under ordinary civil or common law and would fall outside the scope of the Fatal Accidents Act. Thus, murder, would not be subject to the two-year limitation restriction of Article 82."

Dismissing a second appeal filed by the defendants, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below, which had awarded compensation to a mother for the death of her son who was allegedly murdered by the defendants.

The trial court partly decreed the suit and awarded ₹18 lakh with interest. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reduced the compensation to ₹11.28 lakh while upholding the findings on liability. Aggrieved, defendants approached the High Court in second appeal.

The primary contention raised by the appellants was that the suit was barred by limitation, arguing that under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, a claim for compensation for causing death must be filed within two years from the date of death.

Since the death occurred in December 2012 and the suit was instituted in May 2016, it was argued that the claim was time-barred.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim was not filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, but was based on her independent right under general civil law to seek damages for the loss suffered due to the death of her son.

The Court emphasized that the cause of action for a dependent arises from the injury caused to them due to the wrongful act of the defendant, which is distinct from the cause of action that may have been available to the deceased.

The Court further noted that the appellants failed to point out any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the modified compensation awarded to the plaintiff.

Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

Title: Sarwan Singh @ Samma Singh & Others v. Sukhraj Kaur & Ors.

Click here to read order