Supreme Court holds Section 6 of Limitation Act does not extend time for filing appeals; insurer's challenge against enhanced compensation allowed

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. challenging a Kerala High Court order of March 1, 2019, which had enhanced compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The principal issue related to whether delay in preferring a second appeal by the deceased's children could be excused on account of minority under Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the High Court erred in condoning the delay and enhancing compensation after a long lapse of time.

The Court held that the provisions of Section 6 applied only to suits and applications for execution of decrees and not to appeals, and that Section 5 had no application to extend limitation in the facts of the case. It observed that the children's legal position could not be aided by the father's decision (as natural guardian) not to file an appeal earlier and held that long unexplained delay could not be condoned merely on misplaced sympathies. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the present case, the father as the natural guardian has instituted the original proceeding before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 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. In fact, as per Annexure P-4, it is seen that the Insurance Company had filed an appeal from the award of the Tribunal on the ground of the policy not covering the risk of a pillion rider, which stood dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, based on a clarification issued by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority that a package policy will also cover the risk of a pillion rider. In the said appeal the father and the two minor children were made parties, and they appeared through counsel. The father did not choose to file a cross appeal seeking enhancement of the claim amounts. 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 are 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 the case, insofar as the long delay occasioned, especially when in the original proceedings, the children were represented by the father, the natural guardian." The Court also noted that "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."

Background On June 2, 2000, the deceased, aged 32 and a Junior Public Health Nurse, rode pillion on a motorcycle which skidded when the rider applied sudden brakes to avoid a cyclist; she later died on June 7, 2000. The claimant family (husband and two minor children) pursued a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,53,000 on November 23, 2006. The children alone filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court in 2016, after about ten years, seeking enhancement; the High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.14,95,000 and directed payment of interest at 7% per annum. The insurer challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, earlier precedents including Bechi v. Ahsan-Ullah Khan and decisions on the distinction between suits, applications and appeals, and held that disability by reason of minority did not extend the limitation period for an appeal. The Bench observed that the father, as natural guardian, had earlier participated in related proceedings and consciously chose not to file a cross-appeal seeking enhancement; his conduct did not justify condonation of the long delay. In view of these findings the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order that had condoned the delay and enhanced compensation.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. … of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.2466 of 2020) Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopu & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported order For the Respondent(s): Counsel not indicated in the reported order