Punjab

Sangrur

CC/316/2016

Jai Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  316

                                                Instituted on:    01.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       08.09.2016

 

Jai Parkash son of Rammayan Yadav C/o Nahar Fibers, Jitwal Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Employees’ State Insurance Corporation through its Manager, Karbala Road, Malerkotla District Sangrur.

2.     Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh through its Deputy/Regional Director.

3.     Chairman Medical Board, ESI Model Hospital, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OPS                    :        Shri S.M.Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jai Parkash,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant was an employee of Nahar Fiber, Jitwal Kalan and is covered/insured under ESI IP no. 1213417929 and is paying the necessary contribution to the OPs, as such is a consumer of the OPs. 

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that he met with an accident in the premises of Nahar Fibers on 5.2.2015 during the course of his employment and sustained injuries on fingers of his right hand and the same became permanent disable and remained on medical leave and the Ops paid the amount of medical leave and medical expenses to the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that he even appeared before the Medical Board on 30.12.2015 and was examined, but the medical board wrongly assessed the disability of the complainant as nil. The complainant also applied for assessment of disability with the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur and medical board assessed the disability of the complainant as 2% and the complainant again approached the Ops and requested to fix his pension, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to fix the pension and to pay the same along with arrears or to pay compensation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant is an employee of M/s. Nahar Fibres as per the ESI IP as stated above.  It is further admitted that the complainant met with an accident on 5.2.2015 in due course of his employment during the working hours and sustained injuries on fingers of his right hand and the amount of medical leaves and medical expenses have already been paid. It is denied that the complainant became permanent disable and remained on medical leave.  It is denied that the complainant is entitled to get any pension or any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of ESI card, Ex.C-2 copy of disability card, Ex.C-3 copy of letter, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OPs  has produced Ex.OP-1, Ex.OP-2 copy of temp registration and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is an employee of M/s.Nahar Fibres, Jitwal Kalan  Malerkotla and is also having an ESI account with the Ops being an employee covered under the ESI Scheme. It is further admitted that the complainant met with an accident during the course of employment on 5.2.2015 and further it is admitted that the complainant took treatment and the Ops also paid the amount of medical leave and medical expenses to the complainant.  But, in the present case the grievance of the complainant is that though he suffered disablement, but the Ops did not fix his pension.  To support such a contention, he has produced the medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur, Ex.C-2, wherein the disablement is mentioned as 2% (temporary) and it is further mentioned that the same is likely to improve and as such the complainant has sought the pension along with arrears.  But, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that no pension is payable if the disablement is temporary rather the same was like to improve. But, on record the complainant has not produced any certificate showing permanent disablement.

 

7.             Further the complainant has produced clause 126 of the  ESI Medical Manual to get the relief.  We have carefully perused the clause 126 of the manual, wherein it has been stated that any IP stated to be having permanent disablement shall be referred by the Corporation to the Medical Board for determination, if there is permanent disablement and if so, extent of loss of earning capacity and whether the assessment is provision or final.  In case of provisional assessment, the period for which it will hold good will be specified. Case will be referred again to Medical Board on expiry of this period.  But, in the present case, it is the own case of the complainant that 2% disablement is only temporary and further the same is likely to improve.  The complainant has not stated anything in this regard whether the disablement was improved or not.  Moreover clause 126 of the ESI Medical Manual is also not applicable in the circumstances of the case, as in the present case there is no permanent disablement.  As such, we find no merit in the case and the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 8, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

 

 

                                                         

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member