IIND B S BAMHRAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of damages/compensationbecause he sustained severe injuries paralysing and decapacitating him completelyduring the 4th Himalyan Car Rally when the Army service vehicle carrying him metwith an accident. An amount of Rs. 43,32,270.00 is in claim and since the suit has beenfiled as an indigent person, no court fee has been affixed. What has to be decided atthis juncture is whether the suit is barred from being adjudicated upon, having beenfiled beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The relevant facts stated briefly arethat the Plaintiff was commissioned on 24.12.1982, and according to him he wasdetailed for the said Rally in a follow-up vehicle to assist senior participating officers.On 25.10.1983 the accident occurred due to the alleged gross negligence and rashand hasty planning of the Defendants. A Court of Inquiry was held on 27.10.1988which did not hold anyone responsible for the accident. Predicated on this Inquiry it isstated that no compensation was granted. It appears that no insurance cover hadbeen taken. On 22.1.1984 pursuant to a Medical Board, the Plaintiff was invalidatedout of the Army with 100 per cent (total) disability. It is stated in the plaint that from1985-90 the Plaintiff's father corresponded with Respondents for doing justice to thePlaintiff, on the grounds that the matter had not been properly investigated. In thisperiod, on 6.10.1988 the last medical examination of the Plaintiff was carried out. Itwas on 31.12.1990 that the Army Head Quarters had informed the Plaintiff, as hasbeen alleged by him, that no compensation would be paid to the Plaintiff. On25.4.1991 a legal notice was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. The plaint isdated 25.10.1991 but appears to have been filed on 27.11.1991: it was listed beforethe Registrar as late as on 10.2.1992, was thereupon registered and notice wasissued to the Defendants. In its Written Statement the Defendants have submitted,inter alia, that the claim ought to have been filed before the Motor Accident ClaimTribunal; and in order to cover up the grossly delayed action, the plaintiff has resortedto the filing of a suit, which remedy is not available to the Plaintiff since about nineyears have elapsed since the date of the accident. It is averred that the Plaintiff hadvolunteered for participation in the Rally, and that all army personnel are alreadyinsured under the Army Group Insurance Fund. The finding of the Court of Inquiry wasthat the accident was caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the vehicledriver. There is only a perfunctory and hence evasive denial in the Replication toDefendant's statement in paragraph 62 of the Written Statement that the Plaintiff hasreceived his dues from the Army Group Insurance Fund, and that he is still receivingpension as applicable to him.

(2.) Arguments were heard on the maintainability of the suit in view of the law oflimitation. Learned counsel for the Defendants had submitted that the ill-fated accidentand the consequent injuries were sustained by the Plaintiff on 25.10.1983, and thesuit having been filed in November 1991, it was hopelessly barred by time. It was hiscontention that in order to succeed, the Plaintiff must bring his case within the ambitof Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and that the Plaintiff has been unable to do so. ThePlaintiff on the contrary, has submitted that if limitation is calculated from 31.12.1990when, allegedly, the Army Head-Quarters finally declined to pay compensation, thesuit having been filed in November, 1991 is clearly within time. Learned counsel hadrested his case on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Raghubir Jha Vs.State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1986 SC 508; Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs.State of Gujarat, 1994 ACJ 902; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998)7 SCC 123; A.C. Bhandari Vs. New Victoria Mills, AIR 1979 All 1; and ShaManmale Misrimale Vs. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1972 Madras 108.

(3.) Sha Manmale's case (supra) does not advance the Plaintiff's case; in fact itruns counter to the argument advanced on his behalf. The learned Division Benchobserved that since the letters relied upon by the Plaintiff merely called for a Statementof Account, it was no acknowledgment of liability. It was held, on facts that the suit wasnot barred by limitation since the payments were made without indicating any particulardisability. Significantly, it was also opined that it was obligatory under Order VII, Rule6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to clearly plead the grounds upon which theexemption from limitation is claimed. The pleading in this context is to be found inparagraph 63A of the plaint and in my view does not contain sufficient and precisedetails. It reads as follows :