Vansh Nigam And Another vs Workmens Compensation Commissioner/Collector Lakhimpur Kheri And 3 Others

RESERVED / A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 12432 of 2025
Vansh Nigam and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Workmens Compensation Commissioner/Collector Lakhimpur Kheri and
3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deo Raj Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Aprajita Bansal, Neerav
Chitravanshi
Reserved On: 04.02.2026
Delivered On: 27.02.2026
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Deo Raj Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Aparajita Bansal, Advocate, the learned counsel for
the opposite parties.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioners namely (i) Vansh Nigam, aged
about 19 years, S/o Late Indresh Kumar and (ii) Khushi Nigam, aged
about 17 years, minor daughter of Late Indresh Kumar, through her
brother and guardian Vansh Nigam, aged about 19 years, challenging the
validity of an order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the Collector,
Lakhimpur Kheri, in Case No. 673 of 2024 under Section 6 of the Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991 rejecting the petitioners’ claim under
Section 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991.

2
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioners’ father,
Indresh Kumar expired on 28.04.2015 due to electrocution while he was
merely 30 years of age. He used to run a beetle shop cum provision store
and also used to do cultivation. His income was Rs.20,000/- per month
and he was the sole earning member of his family. At the time death of
their father, the petitioners were aged 9 years and 7 years respectively.
4. When the petitioner no. 1 attained majority and the petitioner no.
2 was still a minor aged 16 years, they filed an application under Section
6 (3) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 before the Prescribed
Authority / Collector, Kheri for claiming compensation under the
aforesaid Act. The opposite parties filed a written statement stating that
no claim under Section 6(3) of the aforesaid Act can be filed after the
expiry of 5 years since the date of the accident and, therefore, the suit is
time-barred.
5. Upon this, the petitioners filed an application under Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 stating that they had filed a Miscellaneous Case
No. 3 of 2016, under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 CPC for permission to file a
suit in forma pauperis. That suit was dismissed in default on 25.11.2023.
After the petitioner no.1 attained majority, he has filed the application
under Section 6(3) of the Public Liability Insurance Act without any
further delay.
6. The Prescribed Authority / Collector has rejected the application
by the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 holding that an application
under Section 6(3) of the Public Liability Insurance Act can be
entertained only within a period of 5 years since the date of the accident.
The application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act has been filed
belatedly, and therefore, the same cannot be allowed.
7. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.

3
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
Industrial Institute : (1995) 3 SCC 583 and M/s Consolidated Engg.
Enterprises Vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and others : 2008 (7)
SCC 169, which are on the point of applicability of Section 14 of the
Limitation Act.
8. Per contra , Ms. Aprajita Bansal, the learned counsel for the
opposite party has submitted that Section 6(3) of the Public Liability
Insurance Act, 1991 permits entertaining applications under Section 6(1)
within a period of five years from the date of accident and it does not
contain any provision for condonation of delay for filing of application.
She has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any
illegality.
9. Before proceeding to examine the validity of the impugned order,
it would be appropriate to have a look at some relevant provisions of the
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, which are being reproduced below:
“5. Verification and publication of accident by Collector.-
Whenever it comes to the notice of the Collector that an accident
has occurred at any place within his jurisdiction, he shall verify the
occurrence of such accident and cause publicity to be given in such
manner as he deems fit for inviting applications under sub-section
(1) of Section 6.
6. Application for claim for relief .—(1) An application for claim
for relief may be made—
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury;
(b) by the owner of the property to which the damage has been
caused;
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the
legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by such person or owner of such
property or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased,
as the case may be:

4
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased
have not joined in any such application for relief, the application
shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal
representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who
have not so joined shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application.
(1-A) Where any damage has been caused to any public property or
private property due to manufacture, processing, treatment,
package, storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction,
conversion, transfer or such other processes, of such hazardous
substance, an application for claim for restoration of the property
may be made by the owner of the property or such other person, as
may be prescribed, to the Collector.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the
Collector and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and
shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed.
(3) No application for relief shall be entertained unless it is made
within five years of the occurrence of the accident.”
7. Award of relief .—(1) On receipt of an application under sub-
section (1) of Section 6, the Collector shall, after giving notice of
the application to the owner and after giving the parties an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, each
of the claims, and may make an award determining the amount of
relief which appears to him to be just and specifying the person or
persons to whom such amount of relief shall be paid.
(2) The Collector shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the
parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of
fifteen days from the date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section,—
(a) the insurer, who is required to pay any amount in terms of such
award and to the extent specified in sub-section (2-B) of Section 4,
shall, within a period of thirty days of the date of announcement of
the award, deposit that amount in such manner as the Collector
may direct;
(b) the Collector shall arrange to pay from the Relief Fund, in terms
of such award and in accordance with the scheme made under

5
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
Section 7-A, to the person or persons referred to in sub-section (1)
such amount as may be specified in that scheme;
(c) the owner shall, within such period, deposit such amount in such
manner as the Collector may direct.
(4) In holding any inquiry under sub-section (1), the Collector may,
subject to any rules made in this behalf, follow such summary
procedure as he thinks fit.
(5) The Collector shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the
purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance
of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of
documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may
be prescribed; and the Collector shall be deemed to be a Civil
Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(6) Where the insurer or the owner against whom the award is
made under sub-section (1) fails to deposit the amount of such
award within the period specified under sub-section (3), such
amount shall be recoverable from the owner, or as the case may be,
the insurer as arrears of land revenue or of public demand.
(7) A claim for relief in respect of death of, or injury to, any person
or damage to any property shall be disposed of as expeditiously as
possible and every endeavour shall be made to dispose of such
claim within three months of the receipt of the application for relief
under sub-section (1) of Section 6.
(8) Where an owner is likely to remove or dispose of his property
with the object of evading payment by him of any amount of the
award, the Collector may, in accordance with the provisions of
Rules 1 to 4 of Order XXXIX of the First Schedule to the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), grant a temporary injunction to
restrain such act.
(9) Where the environment is affected or damaged due to
manufacture, processing, treatment, package, storage,
transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, transfer or
such other processes, of such hazardous substance, the Central
Government may, on an application made by the Central Pollution
Control Board or the State Pollution Control Board, as the case
may be, allocate the fund from the Environmental Relief Fund for
restoration of the damage so caused in the manner as may be
prescribed.”

6
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
10. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991, the Central Government has framed
the Public Liability Insurance Rules, 1991, Rule 5 whereof is as follows:
“5. Powers of Collector .—(i) The Collector may follow such
summary procedure for conducting an inquiry on an application for
relief under the Act, as he thinks fit.
(ii) The Collector shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the
following purposes namely:—
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath.
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any public record or document
or copy of such record or document from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examining of witness or documents;
(f) dismissing an application for default or proceeding ex-parte;
(g) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for
default or any order passed by it ex parte;
(h) inherent powers of a civil court preserved under Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”
11. It is also important to note that there is no provision in the Public
Liability Insurance Act which prohibits applicability of the Limitation
Act to proceedings under the Act.
12. Section 5 of the Public Liability Insurance Act casts a statutory
duty upon the Collector that upon coming to know about the occurrence
of an accident, he should himself verify the occurrence of such accident
and thereafter he should invite applications under Section 6(1) of the Act

7
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
for claiming relief under the Act by making a proper publication. There
is nothing on record to indicate that the Collector has performed this
statutory duty by making any publication inviting applications after the
accident in which the petitioners aged 9 and 7 years had lost their father.
13. As the Public Liability Insurance Act is a special Act, Section 6(3)
whereof provides the limitation period of five years for filing an
application under Section 6(1) of the Act, which is different from the
limitation period of three years prescribed by the Schedule for suits
claiming money decrees, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if the
period of five years was the period prescribed by the Schedule under the
Limitation Act and for the purpose of determining any period of
limitation prescribed for an application under Section 6(1) of the Public
Liability Insurance Act, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 shall
apply as they are not expressly excluded by any provision of the Public
Liability Insurance Act.
14. One more aspect needs to be examined, and that is that the
Limitation Act normally applies to Courts and not Tribunals. In this
regard, it becomes important to keep in mind the provisions of Section 7
(5) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, which provides that the
Collector shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of
taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and
of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material
objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the
Collector shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of
Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974). The most important thing is that Rule 5 (ii) (h) of the Public
Liability Insurance Rules, 1991, provides the Collector shall have the
inherent powers of a civil court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The Civil Courts’ inherent powers under Section 151
C.P.C. are not conferred upon tribunals and it is the single most
important feature which indicates that while performing adjudicatory
functions under the Public Liability Insurance Act, the Collector

8
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
functions as a Court so as to make the provisions of the Limitation Act
applicable to it.
15. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred
to a King's Bench judgment in the case of Seaford Court Estates ld. ,
which is as follows: -
“ 274. We may profitably advert to the judgment in Seaford Court
Estates ld. [1949] 2 K.B. 481, which states:
“… A judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule
that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that
the draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been
guilty of some or other ambiguity. It would certainly save the
judges trouble if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine
prescience and perfect clarity. In the absence of it, when a defect
appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the
draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding
the intention of Parliament, and he must do this not only from the
language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social
conditions which gave rise to it, and of the mischief which it was
passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word
so as to give “force and life” to the intention of the
legislature. That was clearly laid down by the resolution of the
judges in Heydon's case, (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a, and it is the safest
guide today. Good practical advice on the subject was given about
the same time by Plowden in his second
volume Eyston v. Studd (1574) 2 Plowden 465. Put into homely
metaphor it is this: A judge should ask himself the question: If the
makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the
texture of it, how would they have straightened it out? He must
then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the
material of which it is woven, but he can and should iron out the
creases.” (Emphasis added)
16. The Public Liability Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation
which has been enacted to provide for public liability insurance for the
purpose of providing immediate relief to the persons affected by
accidents covered under the provisions of the Act. Section 5 of the
Public Liability Insurance Act casts a statutory duty upon the Collector

9
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
that upon coming to know about the occurrence of an accident, he should
himself verify the occurrence of such accident and thereafter he should
invite applications under Section 6(1) of the Act for claiming relief under
the Act by making a proper publication. Therefore, its provisions should
be interpreted in a manner which would be in consonance with the object
of the Act. It could never have been the intention of the framers of the
Public Liability Insurance Act that the benefits under the Act will be
denied to minor children of a deceased victim of an accident merely
because they were minors and due to this legal disability, they could not
file the application within that period and when they filed the application
immediately after attaining majority, the limitation period of five years
mentioned in Section 6(3) of the Act had expired.
17. Therefore I hold that the Prescribed Authority / Collector acts as a
Court and applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to
an application under Section 6(1) of the Public Liability Insurance Act is
not barred.
18. Now I proceed to examine certain relevant provisions of the
Limitation Act, which are being reproduced below: -
“Section 6 - Legal disability
(1) Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an
application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which
the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an
idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the
same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise
have been allowed from the time specified therefore in the third
column of the Schedule.
(2) Where such person is, at the time from which the prescribed
period is to be reckoned, affected by two such disability, or where,
before his disability has ceased, he is affected by another disability,
he may institute the suit or make the application within the same
period after both disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have
been allowed from the time so specified.

10
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
(3) Where the disability continues up to the death of that person, his
legal representative may institute the suit or make the application
within the same period after the death, as would otherwise have
been allowed from the time so specified.
(4) Where the legal representative referred to in sub-section (3) is,
at the date of the death of the person whom he represents, affected
by any such disability, the rules contained sub-sections (1) and (2)
shall apply.
(5) Where a person under disability dies after the disability ceases
but within the period allowed to him under this section, his legal
representative may institute the suit or make the application within
the same period after the death, as would otherwise have been
available to that person had he not died.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, 'minor' includes a
child in the womb.”
Section 7 - Disability of one of several persons
Where one of several persons jointly entitled to institute a suit or
make an application for the execution of a decree is under any such
disability, and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of
such person, time will run against them all; but, where no such
discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them
until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without
the concurrence of the others or until the disability has ceased.
Explanation I.-- This section applies to a discharge from every kind
of liability, including a liability in respect of any immovable
property.
Explanation II.-- For the purposes of this section, the manager of a
Hindu undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law shall be
deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without the concurrence
of the other members of the family only if he is in management of
the joint family property.
Section 8 - Special exceptions
Nothing in section 6 or in section 7 applies to suits to enforce rights
of pre-emption, or shall be deemed to extend, for more than three

11
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
years from the cessation of the disability or the death of the person
affected thereby, the period of limitation for any suit or
application.”
Section 29 - Savings
(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).
(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal
or application a period of limitation different from the period
prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply
as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and
for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed
for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the
provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply
only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly
excluded by such special or local law .
(3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in
force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall
apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.
(4) Section 25 and 26 and the definition of "easement" in section
2 shall not apply to cases arising in the territories to which the
Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), may for the time being
extend.”
19. In Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Excise & Taxation
Officer : (2020) 17 SCC 692, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act would be
attracted where there is no express exclusion or by implication.
20. In Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. (supra)
it was held that: -
“20. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act inter alia provides that
where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or
application a period of limitation different from the period of
limitation prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3
shall apply as if such period was the period prescribed by the
Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of
limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any

12
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24
shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent, they are not expressly
excluded by such special or local law….”
21. As the petitioners were minors at the time of the accident in which
they lost their father, they certainly have the right to file the application
within a period of three years after attaining majority, as per the
provisions contained in Sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act.
22. It is also to be kept in mind that at the time of the accident, the
petitioners were children aged 9 and 7 years and due to legal disability
they could not file an application for claiming compensation for death of
their father and for their failure to file an application during their
disability due to minority, the Collector has rejected their application as
barred by limitation period whereas the Collector himself is guilty of
non-performance of his statutory duty under Section 5 of the Public
Liability Insurance Act which requires that after coming to know about
the occurrence of an accident, the Collector should himself verify the
occurrence of an accident and thereafter he should invite applications
under Section 6(1) of the Act for claiming relief under the Act by making
a proper publication.
23. Therefore, the Collector has committed a legal error in dismissing
the application under Section 6(1) of the Public Liability Insurance Act
as barred by the period of limitation of five years as provided in Section
6(3) of the Act.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed .
The impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the District Magistrate /
Collector Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 673 of 2024 under Section 6 of
the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 , rejecting the petitioners’ claim
under Section 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 as time
barred, is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority /
Collector Lakhimpur Kheri for being decided afresh on its merits in
accordance with the law, expeditiously, without granting any

13
WRIC No. - 12432 of 2025
unnecessary adjournment to any of the party keeping in view the
provision contained in Section 7(7) of the Public Liability Insurance Act,
which mandates that a claim for relief in respect of death of any person
shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and every endeavour
shall be made to dispose of such claim within three months of the receipt
of the application for relief under sub-section (1) of Section 6.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
February 27, 2026
Ram.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench