Delhi

North East

CC/79/2018

Smt. Babita - Complainant(s)

Versus

E.S.I.C. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 79/18

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Babita Widow of Lt. Jagveer Singh Through NareshRawat, F-120, Panchseet Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32	Complainant
	Versus
	Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Through Director, Kotla Marg, New Delhi-110002	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:                                     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                                                      DATE OF ORDER :

01.05.2018                  06.07.2022                  19.10.2022

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1.  The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant’ husband was the permanent employee in M/s Bharat Trading Company 1/10830, Gali No. 2, Subhash Park, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-2 and on 29.04.2017 while working in Jhilmil workshop of East Municipal Corporation of Delhi, he slipped down and got fainted. After that the employers accompanied Complaint’s husband to Indira Gandhi ESI Hospital where the doctor declared him dead and except of ECG test, doctors did not conduct any other test. After demise of husband of the Complainant, the Complainant did not receive any financial assistance from anywhere because the Employers, Police and Labour Department says that as the deceased was insurance holder therefore, the ESI is responsible. On 16.08.2017 the employers and ESIC were asked for claim by sending them letter but nothing happened except neglecting the matter.  The Complainant through her representative NareshRawat sent one request letter to ESIC thereby it was demanded to redress the problems of the Complainant and the constitutional claim was also demanded but the officers of ESIC are concocting the story of contacting employers however, the owners have given appropriate information by giving letter of Director ESIC. On 04.04.2017 Complainant sent one demand letter but she did not receive any compensation. On 28.03.2018 ESIC director also directed the Dy. Director Nand Nagri by writing a letter on 28.03.2018 for constitutional benefit compensation. The complainant stated that as per the rules of Insurance Corporation, the last rights expenses of deceased i.e Rs. 10,000/- have also not been paid till date. The Complainant has prayed that Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as rights of benefit and Rs. 9 lakh as compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the OP to contest the case despite service of notice served on 13.07.2018. Therefore, OP proceeded against ex-party vide order dated 23.10.2018.

Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the AR for the Complainant. We also perused the file and the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that her deceased husband was working with M/s

Bharat Trading Company, her husband while was on duty 29.04.2017 sustained fatal injuries. Her husband was covered under Employee State Insurance. It is her case that she has approached the Labour Department and Employees State Insurance Corporation for grant of compensation due to the death her husband as he was covered under Employee State Insurance, but no compensation was granted to her. Now the Complainant through this Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission wants for issuance of direction to the Employee State Insurance Commission for giving her compensation. In our considered opinion, the case of the Complainant is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Employee State Insurance Commission. Her grievance is that she has not been paid compensation by the Opposite Party. In our considered opinion, this commission is not a power under the Consumer Protection Act to direct the Opposite Party to grant compensation to the Complainant.

5. In view of the above discussion, we don’t find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 19.10.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President