IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1326 of 2004(D) -------------------------------- OPMV.1922/1992 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/1ST PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- AKHILA, KAMBIKKAM HOUSE, VALIAVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: -------------------------------------------- * 1. KUNJUKUNJU K., THAYYIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Expired) * 2. T.SOMAN, KUNNAMPURATHU VEEDU, PATHIRAPPALLY, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(Expired) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * R1 and R2 expired. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1326 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The claim application relates to an accident dated 2.7.92. When the claimant was aged seven years. It was disposed of on 11th October, 1995. Even going by the age shown in the application the claimant would have attained majority in 2003. The present appeal is filed in 2004. Now the question to be considered is whether the minority of the person is a ground to file an appeal by virtue of the statutory period prescribed in law. I am totally conscious of the fact that Section 6 of the Limitation Act prescribes the period of limitation in case of minors when an action is initiated. It states that she or he can institute the proceedings within three years after the date of attaining of the majority or the time stipulated for such action. Here it is not a case of institution of proceedings by a minor but she wants continuation of proceedings. It has to be remembered that her mother as a guardian proceeded to file a claim petition M.A.C.A. 1326 OF 2004 -:2:- before the Tribunal and prosecuted the case. A guardian or a next friend is appointed by the Tribunal following the mandate prescribed under Order 32 of CPC. Under Order 32 CPC any person who is not having an adverse interest to that of a minor can institute a proceeding. So it is in that capacity the mother initiated action against the owner and driver of the insurance company for claiming compensation. It is a settled principle of law that when the Court passes a judgment or decree it can be avoided only on the ground of fraud or gross negligence on the part of the guardian in prosecuting the matter. Or in other words when an action is initiated on behalf of minor by the guardian the method to avoid such a decree is by proving the gross negligence of the guardian or alleging fraud which has to be substantiated and proved. Unless it is so it is a binding judgment or award on the minor. The minor cannot after a lapse of 10 years come and file an appeal contending that she was a minor and therefore she can prosecute the case. Therefore I hold that this is only an attempt by the minor to find out whether she M.A.C.A. 1326 OF 2004 -:3:- can get any enhanced compensation even without attributing negligence or fraud on the guardian. Therefore it is to be presumed that the guardian has only acted in a bona fide good spirit and conducted the litigation. If really there was a grievance the guardian would have filed an appeal in time. Therefore I do not want to entertain this appeal on this ground. So the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-