In a landmark judgment concerning the scope of limitation laws, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between original proceedings and appellate remedies under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that
“the benefit of disability-based exemption under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies exclusively to original suits or applications for the execution of a decree, and not to appeals“
This ruling came in the context of a motor accident compensation case, where the Apex Court allowed an appeal filed by an insurance company against the enhancement of compensation granted by the Kerala High Court.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a motor accident that occurred on June 2, 2000, in which the deceased, riding pillion on a motorcycle, lost her life after the driver abruptly applied brakes to avoid a cyclist. The accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle’s owner-cum-driver, who remained ex-parte during proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).
The legal representatives of the deceased—her husband and two minor children—filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The MACT awarded compensation of ₹6,53,000.
However, in 2016—a full 10 years after the original award and 8 years after the elder child attained majority—the children independently preferred an appeal before the Kerala High Court seeking enhancement. The High Court enhanced the compensation to ₹14,95,000 with 7% annual interest, which prompted the insurance company to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Findings
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran examined the core legal issue: whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, which provides relief to persons suffering from legal disabilities like minority, insanity, or idiocy.
The Bench categorically held that:
“Section 6 of the Limitation Act allows a person under disability to institute a suit or make an application for execution of a decree after the disability ceases. However, it does not extend to appeals or other legal proceedings.”
The Court clarified that the scope of this provision is strictly limited to original proceedings—that is, suits filed before civil courts or applications for execution—and does not encompass appellate proceedings, where different limitation rules apply.
Role of Natural Guardian and Delay in Filing
The Court also emphasized that the father of the children, who was their natural guardian, had already filed the original compensation claim and consciously chose not to file an appeal. His satisfaction with the Tribunal’s award signified an informed decision. The later claim that the children were abandoned and in the custody of their grandparents lacked substantiation and, even if proven, would not have revived the appeal under Section 6.
“Even if there had been abandonment or a second marriage by the father, as alleged, such circumstances would not extend the limitation period for filing an appeal. The legislative intent is unambiguous, and courts are not to indulge in misplaced sympathies,” the Bench added.
Furthermore, the Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which provides for condonation of delay upon showing sufficient cause, also did not apply in this case due to the inordinate delay of 2877 days (nearly 8 years after attaining majority), coupled with the absence of convincing justification.
The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court enhancing the compensation and allowed the appeal filed by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reaffirming the statutory limitation framework.
This ruling is significant in reaffirming the narrow interpretation of Section 6 and sending a clear message that legal exemptions on grounds of disability are limited to the initiation of original suits and do not cover appellate remedies, thereby preserving the integrity of procedural timelines in the justice system.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopu & Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 511
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE