Fatal Accident Claims Under 1855 Act To Be Registered As Original Suits; Appeal Under S.96 CPC Maintainable Against Decree: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a decree passed in suit for accident compensation under Section 1A of Fatal Accidents Act is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and is thus appealable under Section 96 CPC.In doing so the court issued a slew of directions, ordering that Fatal Accident Original Petitions shall not be entertained and such matters will be registered as original petitions and all such pending FAOPs will be converted into Original Suits (OS). For context, Section 1A Fatal Accidents Act, pertains to 'suit for compensation to the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his death by actionable wrong'. A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli passed the order in an appeal arising out of a claim petition filed by the parents of a deceased person under Section 1A seeking compensation of Rs.20 Lakh on account of the death of their son in an accident. The Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam allowed the plea and granted compensation of Rs.20 Lakh with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realization, against which the respondent filed an appeal before the high court. The Registry raised objections regarding the entertainability of the respondent's appeal under Section 96 CPC on the ground that the original proceedings had been registered as Fatal Accident Original Petition and not as a suit. Objections were also raised regarding valuation and court fee."At this stage we may mention that Section 1A (3rd para) clearly states of a 'decree'. In start, it speaks of 'in any such action'. So from a first look it appears that 'decree' is to be passed in an 'action'. The expressions 'action or suit' have been used in first two paragraphs of Section 1 A but in the third para only 'action' has been used and not 'suit'. So, prima facie a question arises as to why 'suit' has been omitted in 3rd para. Whether a 'decree' is to be passed only in an 'action' and not in a 'suit'. We do not think so. Decree is to be passed, it may be an action (FAOP) or a suit (O.S.)," the bench held. The bench clarified that a decree is to be passed even in a Fatal Accident Original Petitions (FAOP) as the word 'decree' has been specifically used for an 'action'. The court said that for the purposes of Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, the terms 'action' and 'suit' are to be treated alike."We should not make a distinction between an adjudication made in a suit (OS) and an adjudication made in an action (FAOP), by the Civil Court, for the purpose of an appeal under Section 96 CPC. All the attributes of the 'decree' as defined under Section 2(2) CPC are fulfilled. No distinction can be made simply on the basis of the proceedings being registered as 'suit' (OS) or 'an action' (FAOP), under Section 1A the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855...To sum up, an appeal under Section 96 CPC lies against the decree as defined under Section 2(2) of CPC. The decree must have been passed in a suit by the Civil Court. The suit is initiation of the proceedings in the civil Court by presentation of a plaint or such other mode as may be prescribed by law," the bench added. The High Court examined Sections 1A, 2 and 3 of the Fatal Accidents Act along with Sections 2(2), 9, 26 and 96 CPC.The Court observed that Section 1A uses the expressions “action or suit”, while Section 3 specifically provides that the “plaint” in such action or suit shall contain particulars of the claim. The Court further noted that proceedings under Section 1A involve adjudication of rights and liabilities, recording of evidence, and final determination by a civil court followed by a decree.The Bench observed that all the attributes of a decree under Section 2(2) CPC stood satisfied. It held that no distinction could be made merely because the proceedings were registered as FAOP instead of Original Suit. The Court held that under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, the expressions “action” and “suit” have been used as synonymous expressions and that “action is not different from suit.” The Court observed:“The word 'action' has traditionally been understood to be synonymous to suit or as original proceedings in a Court for enforcement or protection of the rights of the initiator of the proceedings.” the bench held. While arriving at the conclusion, the Court relied upon the principle laid down in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of the Dehra Dun-Mussorie Electric Tramway Company Limited, AIR 1933 PC 63 that the word “suit” ordinarily means a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of a plaint. Reliance was also placed on Kalakota Varalakshmi v. Kalakota Veerareddi, 1959 SCC OnLine AP 139 wherein it was held that a decree under Section 2(2) CPC presupposes proceedings initiated in a suit and that proceedings initiated by plaint would answer the description of a suit. It thus issued the following directions:i) the proceedings claiming compensation or damages under Section 1A ...

Fatal Accident Claims Under 1855 Act To Be Registered As Original Suits; Appeal Under S.96 CPC Maintainable Against Decree: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

Fatal Accident Claims Under 1855 Act To Be Registered As Original Suits; Appeal Under S.96 CPC Maintainable Against Decree: AP High Court

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers