Minor Claimants Are Entitled to File Original Applications Within the Limitation Period After Attaining Majority

The appellants (children of the deceased) sought compensation for a death caused by an "untoward incident" on the Railways.

Initially, the widow filed a claim petition (OA/2010/01067) which the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) dismissed due to a delay of approx. 12 years.

On appeal, the High Court permitted withdrawal with liberty for the minor children to file a fresh petition upon attaining majority, citing protections under the Limitation Act.

When the heirs attained majority and filed a fresh petition, the RCT again dismissed it on the grounds of limitation, ignoring the High Court's prior liberty and the statutory protections for minors.

1. Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the grounds of limitation despite the claimants being minors at the time of the incident.

2. Whether Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963, protect the right of a minor to institute a claim within the prescribed period after attaining majority without requiring a condonation of delay.

The Court applied Sections 6 and 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provide for the extension of limitation periods in cases of legal disability.

These sections safeguard the rights of minors to institute proceedings after the disability (minority) has ceased, allowing them to file claims within the statutory period starting from the date they attain majority.

The Court also acted under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which governs appellate jurisdiction.

The High Court found that the RCT adopted a "pedantic approach" by failing to recognize the specific legal protections afforded to minors under the Law of Limitation.

The Court reasoned that under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, a person who was a minor when the cause of action accrued is entitled to file a claim within the prescribed period after reaching majority as a matter of right, without the necessity of filing an application for condonation of delay.

The RCT's decision was deemed erroneous because it overlooked the fact that the second petition was filed by the heirs specifically after attaining majority, as expressly permitted by the High Court's previous order in First Appeal No. 3297 of 2017.

The High Court quashed and set aside the RCT’s order dated April 30, 2012. The matter was restored to the Railway Claims Tribunal with directions to decide the claim on its merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.