Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 4166 OF 2022 (GM-AC)
BETWEEN:
1. LALITHA, W/O. LATE SANNAPPA, AGED 34 YEARS, 2. NIRANJAN H.S., S/O. LATE SANNAPPA, AGED 16 YEARS, SECOND PETITIONER IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER No.1, LALITHA, DEAD, PETITIONER 1 AND 3 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE SECOND PETITIONER, Digitally signed by 3. CHIKKAMANNAMMA, VALLI W/O. SIDDAIAH, MARIMUTHU Location: High AGED 76 YEARS, Court of PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT Karnataka HEMMANAHALLI, ATHGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 429.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI P. N. HARISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI N. S., S/O. SINGRIGOWDA, 'MAJOR IN AGE'
R/O. No.60, NODEKOPPALU, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 403.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2022 PASSED BY LEARNED III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS, TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-18) ON IA No.11 DATED 17.12.2021 IN ECA No.60/2019 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND THEREBY DISMISS THE IA DATED 17.12.2021 MADE BY THE R2 IN ECA No.60/2019 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS, TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (SCCH-18) PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC,.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
This instant petition aggrieved against the order in ECA No.60/2019 dated 02.02.2022, in the Court of the III Additional Judge and MACT, Bengaluru.
2. Petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.3 is mother of late Sannappa, who died on 28.12.2018 in the course of his employment with respondent No.1. The petitioners filed petition under Section 22 read with Schedule IV of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- towards death of late Sannappa.
3. On service of notice, respondent No.2 filed written statement on 21.10.2019. The tribunal framed issues on 21.11.2019. Respondent No.2 filed additional written statement on 20.01.2020. The tribunal framed additional issue on
04.02.2020.
4. Respondent No.2 filed application under Section
21(a)(b)(c) of the Employees Compensation Act (for short ‘the EC Act’) to dismiss the petition on the ground of Jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 filed another application on 17.12.2021 under Section 21(a)(b)(c) of the EC Act, to dismiss the claim petition on the ground of Jurisdiction. The petitioners filed detailed objections to the I.As.
5. The Tribunal by order dated 02.02.2022 allowed the applications filed by respondent No.2 under Section 21(a)(b)(c)
of the EC Act and returned the claim petition to present the same before the proper Court.
6. Sri P.N. Harish learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on registering the claim petition, the tribunal issued notice. Respondent No.2 filed written statement on 21.10.2019, no objection was raised on the Jurisdiction. The tribunal by order dated 21.11.2019 framed issues, the issues does not refer to the jurisdiction issue. Respondent No.2 filed additional written statement on 20.01.2020 raising the issue of jurisdiction, the tribunal on 04.02.2020 framed additional issue. The tribunal did not adjudicate the additional issue on the jurisdiction. Respondent No.2 filed application under Section 21 (a)(b)(c) of the EC Act on 02.02.2021 to dismiss the claim petition on jurisdiction. Another application dated 17.12.2021 was filed under Section 21(a)(b)(c) of the EC Act. Respondent No.2 neither persuaded the tribunal to adjudicate on the additional issue nor pressed for any orders on the interim applications filed on 02.02.2021 and 17.12.2021.
7. It is further submitted that the evidence of both the parties was completed and when the matter was posted for arguments, the respondent No.2 pressed the application. The objection to the jurisdiction is contrary to Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘Section 21 of CPC’).
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 filed written statement on 21.10.2019. Though issues were framed on 21.11.2019, additional written statement was filed on 20.01.2020. The Tribunal has rightly entertained the additional written statement and framed additional issue. It is the duty of the tribunal to adjudicate the additional issue on jurisdiction before proceeding in the matter. As the tribunal failed to adjudicate the issue, application dated 02.02.2021 was filed seeking to dismiss the petition on jurisdiction. As the said application was also not adjudicated by the tribunal, respondent No.2 preferred second application on 17.12.2021 under Section 21 (a)(b)(c) of the EC Act, seeking to dismiss the petition on jurisdiction. The petitioners filed statement of objections to I.As. The tribunal without considering the applications touching upon the jurisdiction of the tribunal, proceeded to record the evidence of both the parties and posted the matter for argument. At that stage, having the tribunal failed to adjudicate the additional issue as a preliminary issue concerning jurisdiction, this respondent was compelled to persuade the tribunal to adjudicate issue of jurisdiction. The objections regarding jurisdiction is raised by respondent No.2 strictly in conformity with Section 21 of CPC.
9. Considere
