BANGALORE ELECTRICAL COMPANY LIMITED, (BESCOM) v. SMT. KALPANA.M

SMT. KALPANA.M W/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

KUM. SAHANA.L W/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,

MASTER NITHESH.L S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.KALPANA.M, RESPONDENT-1, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9867 WP No. 22413 of 2021 RESIDING AT D1/1, 220 K.V.KEB COLONY, HOODI, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560 048. (BY SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR.R., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Sri.H.V.Devaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Chandra Kumar.R., learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person.

2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the VII Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-3) in E.C.A.No.75/2021 on an interim application filed by the Claimants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

The brief facts are these: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9867 WP No. 22413 of 2021 The Claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation on the ground that the husband of the first claimant and father of the second and third claimants i.e., deceased Linge Gowda was working under the BESCOM as a Lineman and on the 2nd day of May 2016 at about 9:00 pm., It is said that he went to his duty and at the instructions of the Junior Engineer of the respondent Company along with another Lineman. It is stated that firstly went to attend the complaint at Basavanna Nagar, near Gopalan School, and then went to attend another complaint R 11 KV Jump (JOS) near KPTCL Quarters, Hoodi. It is also stated that the Junior Engineer contacted F-6 Hoodi Station by Phone and requested to clear the Line after obtaining the Line clearance and after confirmation, he climbed the Electric Pole with the assistance of another Lineman Sri. Santhosh Kumar with the help of a ladder. At the time, Linge Gowda screamed for an electric shock due to a defect in the HT Fuse. He was shifted to Narayana Multi Specialty Hospital, wherein the Doctor declared he was dead. Hence, the claimants filed a petition seeking compensation. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9867 WP No. 22413 of 2021 There was a delay in filing the petition, accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. After receipt of the notice, the respondent appeared through its counsel filed a detailed statement of objections, and prayed for dismissal of the petition. The Trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 allowed the application. It is this order that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

Sri.H.V.Devaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the accident occurred on the 2nd day of May 2016. However, the claimants filed a claim petition on 21.10.2020. There is an inordinate delay of four years in filing the claim petition. Hence, he submits that the Trial Court has erred in condoning the delay. Counsel, therefore, submits that the order of the Trial court may be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed. By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel Sri. Chandra Kumar., urged several contentions and justified the order passed by the Trial Court. He submits that sufficient cause was shown for the condonation of delay. He argued by - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9867 WP No. 22413 of 2021 saying that the Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and condoned the delay. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the Annexures with utmost care.

The point that requires consideration is whether the Trial court is justified in condoning the delay.

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the accident occurred on the 2nd day of May 2016 at about 9:00 pm., However, the claim petition is filed in the year 2020 i.e., on 21.10.2020. There is an ordinate delay in filing the petition. The Trial Court condoned the delay. The issue revolves around the delay. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is furnished in this petition and the same is marked as Annexure-B. Perused the same with utmost care. Smt. Kalpana.M W/o.Late Linge Gowda has sworn to a declaration of fact in the form of an affidavit. She has - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9867 WP No. 22413 of 2021 made allegation against her advocate that he did not perform his professional duties i.e., by filing a claim petition for death compensation. Except blaming the advocate, the claimants have not accorded sufficient reasons to condone the delay. In case, the claimants have any grievance against their advocate for not discharging the professional duties, Court is not the appropriate Forum. Furthermore, accusing advocate cannot be a ground to condone the delay. Hence, I have no hesitation in concluding that the claimants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. As per Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, the claim petition ought to have been filed within two years. In the present case, the claimants have filed the claim petition after a lapse of four years. The Trial Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and condoned the delay, which in my opinion is unsustainable in law. I may venture to say that the Trial Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9867 WP No. 22413 of 2021

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated

03.09.2021 passed by the VII Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-3) in E.C.A.No.75/2021 on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act vide Annexure- D is quashed. The application filed by the Claimants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Because of the rejection of the application, the claim petition in E.C.A.No.75/2021 is also rejected.