JUDGMENT : V.SRINIVAS, J. This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.104 of 2011 dated 01.05.2014 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge at Kadapa. 2. The plaintiffs, before the Trial Court, are the appellants herein. The respondents herein are the defendants. 3. The appellants instituted the suit against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.12,52,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs. 4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the Trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 5. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in brief in the plaint was as follows: i). One Jambula Soma Sekhar Reddy (hereinafter called as “the deceased”) got installed an electrical motor in the land an extent of Ac.9.43 cents belongs to the appellants situated near Ragimanuthota and he cultivating the said land along with other family members. ii). On 13.10.2008 at about 05.00 a.m., when the deceased went to the said fields for watering the garden and tried to switch on the starter of the motor, the aluminum wire which was given connection to the starter from the L.T. pole was cut and the wire fell on the chest of the deceased, resulted the deceased got electrocuted and died on the spot. iii). It is the duty of the respondents to give connection to the starter from the L.T. pole, but they simply inserted the wire to save the cost, thereby, they are negligent in discharging their duties. iv). Then the police registered a case in Cr.No.133 of 2008 of Pulivendula Police Station and got conducted postmortem to the dead body of the deceased. v). By the date of incident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and he is the only bread winner in the family. Due to the untimely demise of the deceased, the appellants suffering from mental agony and unable maintain themselves. vi). The appellants sent a notice, dated 19.02.2010 demanding the respondents to pay compensation, but they denied for the same by reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit. 6. Due to the untimely demise of the deceased, the appellants suffering from mental agony and unable maintain themselves. vi). The appellants sent a notice, dated 19.02.2010 demanding the respondents to pay compensation, but they denied for the same by reply with false allegations. Hence, the suit. 6. The defendants denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows: i). The department has no knowledge about the death of the deceased and they have no information about the incident. The death of the deceased is at his own risk and there is liability only on the field owner. The deceased is not the consumer of the department or paying any consumption charges. ii). On verification, immediately after the incident, by the defendant No.2, found that the consumer with his own funds purchased the aluminum wire at cheaper cost without the knowledge of the defendants and connected the same to the main pole. Due to sub- standard quality of wire, the same was cut, resulted the incident. Thereby, the death of the deceased is only due to self-negligence. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiffs after lapse of 2 ½ years is barred by limitation and it is not maintainable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. On these pleadings, the Trial Court settled the following issues and an additional issue for Trial: “1.Whether the electric shock with which the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy, died is due to the negligence of the defendants? 2.Whether the plaintiffs are the dependent legal heirs of the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy? 3.Whether the plaintiffs suffered the damages to the extent of the suit claim due to the death of the deceased Soma Sekhar Reddy? 4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,52,000/- as prayed for? and 5.To what relief?” Additional Issue Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within time? 8. At the Trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.11 in support of their contentions. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 9. and 5.To what relief?” Additional Issue Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within time? 8. At the Trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.11 in support of their contentions. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. 9. Basing on the material and evidence, Trial Court came to conclusion that the defendants’ department is negligent in maintaining the service connection wire, resulted death of the deceased, thereby, they are liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs, however, in view of Article 82 of the Limitation Act, the present suit filed beyond two years and is not maintainable, thus, the dismissed the suit. 10. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri K.Muni Reddy Bala Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri Ashok Kondeti, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Ramarao Kota, leaned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 12. Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri K.Muni Reddy Bala Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the suit for damages was filed on account of the Tortious Act committed by the respondents, but, not under Sections 1-A and 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, thereby, Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application; that when the Tortious liability arising due to negligence, mistake, defective planning and failure to discharge public duty, it is governed by the provision of the Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1963, in which case, the limitation is three (3) years from the date of death of a person, but not under Article 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby, the Trial Court grossly erred in dismissing the suit on account of limitation. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Kerala State Electricity Board v. K.V.Bhaskaran Nair , 2002 2 KLJ 211 , 2002 Supreme(ker) 499 in which relied upon its earlier pronouncement in Jay Laxmi Slat Works (P) LTD., v. State of Gujarat , 1994 Supreme(SC) 507 13. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Kerala State Electricity Board v. K.V.Bhaskaran Nair , 2002 2 KLJ 211 , 2002 Supreme(ker) 499 in which relied upon its earlier pronouncement in Jay Laxmi Slat Works (P) LTD., v. State of Gujarat , 1994 Supreme(SC) 507 13. Per contra , Sri Ashok Kondeti, learned counsel representing Sri Venkata Ramarao Kota, leaned counsel for the respondents/defendants strenuously submits that when a suit filed for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, Article 82 provides for a specific period of limitation i.e., two (2) years from the date of the death of the person; that it is not justified to apply for computation of period of limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, since the claim is not for loss due to damage of property. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon a pronouncement of Tripura High Court in Sipra Banik v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited 2015 AIR TRIP 90 as well a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damini v. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited AIR Supreme Court 4901, 2017 (9) SCC 443 14. It is against this backdrop, the only point that arises for determination need consideration now, “Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit on account of Limitation under Article 82 of the Act?” 15. POINT Before deciding the above point, this Court would like to refer certain admitted facts as culled from the record. 16. It is not in dispute about the date of deceased on 13.10.2008. Further, no appeal was preferred by the defendants against the findings of the Tribunal that the defendant department is alone responsible to maintain the service connection wire up to the point of starter and they cannot disown their liability, thereby, due to their negligence only the incident was occurred, resulted death of the deceased and they are liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. 17. In view of the above admitted facts, this Court need not go into the other merits of the matter, now, it is only before this Court to decide the maintainability of the suit on the point of limitation. 18. 17. In view of the above admitted facts, this Court need not go into the other merits of the matter, now, it is only before this Court to decide the maintainability of the suit on the point of limitation. 18. On this aspect, it is the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that the Article 82 of the Limitation Act has no application to the present case on hand and the same is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act. 19. In support of the same, he relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V.Bhaskaran Nair case ( referred to supra-1 ), wherein it was held that: “….In Jay Laxmi Salt Works case the Supreme Court held that when Tortious liability arising due to negligence, mistake, defective planning or failure to discharge public duty, it is governed by the provision of Article 113 of the Indian Limitation Act, the residuary Article. The Apex Court considered the meaning of the work “tort”. It was held that the test should be whether injury or damage occurred due to failure or duty to take reasonable car…..” ( emphasis supplied 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above decision has no application to the present case on hand, admittedly, the suit is filed by the plaintiffs, who are legal heirs of the deceased, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased due to the electric shock, on account of the negligence of the electricity officials, thereby, the suit comes under the category of 1A of Fatal Accidents Act. 21. When it comes to the observations of the Tripura High Court in Sipra Banik case ( referred to supra-3 ), by referring the catena of pronouncements of various High Courts, there is categorical distinguishment to the applicability of the Article 82 of the Limitation Act for the claim under the Fatal Accidents Act in a case of death of person as well Article 113 of the Limitation Act for the claim for damages to property. 22. Now, it is relevant to mention the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Damini case ( referred to supra-4 ), which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, that: “12. 22. Now, it is relevant to mention the categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Damini case ( referred to supra-4 ), which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, that: “12. The appellants have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat to justify their argument that Article 113 should be applied for computation of period of limitation. Jay Laxmi (supra) was not a case of death of a person and it was also not a case under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. It pertained to a claim of damages for loss due to damage to property. Therefore, Jaya Laxmi (supra) has no relevant in a suit for damage under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. Therefore, the suit under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 has to be filed within two years.” ( emphasis supplied 23. In view of the above categorically observations made by the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that once a specific period of limitation is referrable to any of the entries in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, then the residuary Article 113 cannot be invoked. In the instant case, for a suit for damages under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, Article 82 provides for a specific period of limitation i.e., two (2) years from the date of death of the person. Admittedly, the present suit is filed before the Trial Court on 29.08.2011, which is beyond two (2) years from the date of death of the deceased i.e., 13.10.2008, barred by limitation under Article 82 of the Limitation Act. 24. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the Trial Court after thorough appreciation of the matter, rightly dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, now, in view of the above settled legal position, this Court has no reason to interfere with the well-articulated judgment passed by the Trial Court, as such, the present appeal has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.104 of 2011 dated 01.05.2014 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge at Kadapa. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.104 of 2011 dated 01.05.2014 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District Judge at Kadapa. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.