Disability Exemption U/S. 6 Limitation Act Applies To Original Proceedings & Not Appeals: Supreme Court
The Appeal before the Supreme Court was directed against an order passed by the Kerala High Court challenging enhanced motor accident compensation.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While allowing the appeal filed by an Insurance Company agaisnt a judgment enhancing motor accident compensation, the Supreme Court has observed that the exemption by reason of a disability applies only with respect to a suit or an application for the execution of a decree and not in an appeal.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was directed against an order passed by the Kerala High Court by which the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was enhanced. The claimants had filed the claim appeal after 10 years of the award, and further after about 8 years from the date of attaining majority.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran explained, “Section 6, of the Limitation Act, 1963, as is evident from the extract enables a person disabled, by reason of minority, insanity or idiocy, to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a ‘decree’, within the period of limitation provided, after the disability has ceased. The provision applies only with respect to a suit or an application for the execution of a decree and not in an appeal or any other proceeding.”
Factual Background
On June 2, 2000, the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle being driven by the first respondent before the Tribunal. The first respondent applied brakes suddenly to save a cyclist, and the deceased fell and was injured. Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to her injuries at the Medical College Hospital. It was alleged that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the bike driver. The owner and driver were ex-parte in the Tribunal.
The legal representatives of the deceased, husband and two minor children, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,53,000. Against this award, after 10 years, in 2016, the children alone preferred an appeal before the Kerala High Court. The High Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 6,53,000 to Rs. 14,95,000 and further directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay interest @ 7% p.a.This is the order which was challenged before the Apex Court.
Arguments
It was the case of the Appellants that the judgment passed by the High Court was not sustainable in the eye of law as the first respondent himself attained majority in the year 2011 as per his affidavit filed with the MAC appeal in year 2016 and he had not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the MAC Appeal was not filed immediately after attaining majority. The respondents/claimants filed the MAC appeal after 10 years of the award, and further after about 8 years (2877 days) from the date of attaining majority.
Reasoning
Referring to the Limitation Act, 1963, the Bench explained that Section 6 enables a person disabled, because of minority, insanity or idiocy, to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a ‘decree’, within the period of limitation provided, after the disability has ceased. “Likewise legal disabilities specified in Section 6 creates an exemption and enables the period of limitation to run from the date on which the disability has ceased, only in the case of a suit or an application for the execution of a decree; the last of which we already noticed is excluded under Section 5”, it added.
The Bench also explained, “Impliedly, the exemption by reason of a disability applies to the institution of an original proceeding or an application for execution of a final decree, which will not apply in the case of an appeal.”
It was noticed that the father, as the natural guardian, had instituted the original proceeding before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and filed for compensation on the death of his wife in a motor vehicle accident, with both the minor children in the party array of claimants, represented by the father, the natural guardian. The father did not choose to file an appeal from the award. The Bench also found that the father, who is the natural guardian, took a conscious decision not to file an appeal and was satisfied with the award. The statements made in the application for condonation of delay, that the father had married again, the children were abandoned, who were in the care of their grandparents, were not substantiated.
“We make this observation fully conscious of the fact that any substantiation would also have not enabled the filing of an appeal under Section 6, the exemption under which, based on a disability, is confined to suits and applications for execution of a decree. The intention of the legislature being very clear, it is not for the courts to extend the period of limitation on misplaced sympathies. Even Section 5 has no application in the facts of thecase, insofar as the long delay occasioned, especially when in the original proceedings, the children were represented by the father, the natural guardian”, it held.
Thus, setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge, the Bench allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopu & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 511)