Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sarasa vs M/S N.C.Electricals on 16 February, 2024
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6717-DB
MFA No. 8553 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8553 OF 2017 (WC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASA
W/O LATE. SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.J-9, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
HANUMANTAPURAM, SRIRAMPURAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 079.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.J. ANANDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S N.C.ELECTRICALS
Digitally
signed by (GOVT LICENSED CLASS I ELECTRICAL
SHAKAMBARI CONTRACTOR)
Location: NO.235, 6TH CROSS, BHASYAM NAGAR,
HIGH COURT
OF SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU.
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR.SHIVA KUMAR.
2. M/S VANDHANA ADVERTISEMENTS
NO.41/1, WARD NO.117, NANJAPPA ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR.PRAKASH.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6717-DB
MFA No. 8553 of 2017
3. SRI.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY
NO.52/4, 46/1, RADHAKRISHNA BUILDING,
2ND MAIN ROAD, GAREPALYA,
NEAR SAFETY COUNCIL, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 068.
4. BESCOM
NEAR TO K.R.CIRCLE,
CUBBON PARK ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 AND R2 STANDS DISMISSED V/O/DATED:16.02.2024
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
BY SRI.H.V. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 30(1)
OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.09.2016 PASSED IN ECA
NO.321/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6717-DB
MFA No. 8553 of 2017
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant who is physically
present prays for a week's time stating that he has to
ascertain the correct, complete and present address of the
unserved respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to take steps.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 is not present either physically or through
video conference.
3. A perusal of the appeal papers go to show that
the present appellant was the petitioner in the petition
filed under Section 22 of Employees' Compensation Act
against the present respondents seeking compensation in
a sum of `25,00,000/- with interest for the alleged death
of her son in an accident said to have occurred during the
course of his employment.
4. The trial Court has allowed the petition
only against respondent No.1 i.e., M/s. N.C.Electricals
and the claim petition as against respondent
Nos.2 to 5 came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by
NC: 2024:KHC:6717-DB
the same, the petitioner before the trial Court has
preferred this appeal seeking to fasten the liability against
all the respondents including respondent Nos.2 to 5.
5. The claim petition is of the year 2014 which came
to be dismissed by the trial Court on 20.09.2016. The
present appeal came to be filed on 13.11.2017. The
notice came to be ordered on 23.08.2018. The notice sent
at the first instance came to be returned unserved as
against respondent Nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.3
was shown to be served and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are
being represented by the learned counsel.
6. On 26.05.2021, four weeks time was granted to
the appellant to do the needful by taking fresh steps as
against the unserved respondents. From the said date till
today i.e, for more than two and half years, the appellant
has not taken steps. Thus, from the year 2014, till date
the matter has shown no much progress and from the
year of the appeal i.e. from 2017 till today i.e., for more
than six years the service of notice upon of the respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:6717-DB
has remained incomplete. Even after getting more than
two and half years, the appellant has not evinced any
interest in ascertaining the correct, complete and present
address of the unserved respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to
take steps. Under the above circumstances, we find no
reasons to grant any further adjournment.
7. Accordingly, the appeal as against respondent
Nos.1 and 2 stands dismissed for not taking steps.
Consequently, when the very appeal as against
respondent Nos.1 and 2 has remained dismissed, the
appeal as against remaining respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 is
liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. As such, the
appeal also stands dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
