Punjab

Sangrur

CC/297/2016

Jaswinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  297

                                                Instituted on:    16.02.2016

                                                Decided on:       27.09.2016

 

1.Jaswinder Kaur aged about 42 years widow of Shri Sandeep Singh son of Shri Tarlok Singh.

2.Sarabjot Singh 3. Jagjit Singh minor sons of Shri Sandeep Singh son of Shri Tarlok Singh, minors under the guardianship and through their next friend their mother Jaswinder Kaur widow of Shri Sandeep Singh son of Shri TarlokSingh.

4.Tirlok  Singh son of Sh. Laxman Singh, all residents of House No.8674, Gali No.18, Kot Mangal Singh, Ludhiana.

                                                        ..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     Employees State Insurance Corporation through its Manager, Karbala Road, Near Dr. Zakhir Hussain Stadium, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

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

3.     M/s.Raghbir Mechanical Works, through its proprietor/partner, Chappar Road, Ahemdgarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OPS no.1&2       :       Shri S.M.Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Exparte.          

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Jaswinder Kaur and others,  complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the husband of the complainant number 1 and father of the complainants number 2 and 3 and son of the complainant number 4 namely, Sandeep Singh (referred to as deceased in short) was an employee of M/s. Raghbir Mechanic Works, Chappar Road, Ahemdgarh (OP number 3) and as such was covered/insured under ESI no. 1213697176 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 when the deceased was working in the premises of the OP number 3 on 14.5.2014 at about 10.30 Am and during his course of employment in working hours slipped and suffered head injury and was brought to ESI Hospital, Ludhiana and from where he was referred to CMC, Ludhiana where he died on 19.5.2014 due to the above said head injury.  It is further stated that the report of the accident was given to the Ops number 1 and 2 on 15.5.2014 and accidental report was submitted by the OP number 3 on 25.6.2014 and after that the officer of the Ops number 1 and 2 visited the spot on 17.7.2014 and submitted his report on 18.7.2014 and the OP number 2 got medical report of Sandeep Singh and declared that Sandeep Singh died due to inverse fungal Sincrasitis and without any ground declared the case of the complainant not covered under employment injury.  The grievance of the complainant is that when the OPs number 1 and 2 were approached for awarding pension on account of the death of the deceased, nothing happened and told that the same is not covered under the scheme. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to settle the pension case of Sandeep Singh and to pay the same to the complainants along with interest from the date of death i.e. 19.5.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 3 did not appear, as such, was proceeded exparte.

 

4.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present 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 deceased Sandeep Singh was an employee of M/s. Raghbir Mechanical Works and was covered under the ESI scheme as stated above.  It is further admitted that the deceased met with an accident on 14.5.2014, but it is denied that during his course of employment during working hours the deceased slipped and his head struck against the earth and accidental report was submitted by the OP number 3 on 25.6.2014 i.e. 42 days after the reported accident with the Ops.  However, it is the matter of record that the deceased sustained head injury and was brought to ESI Model Hospital, Ludhiana and from there he was referred to CMC Ludhiana, where he died on 19.5.2014 due to the said accident. It is stated that the Ops got medical report of Sandeep Singh and declared the case of the complainant ‘not covered under employment injury’ as per the letter dated 12.7.2014, as the OP number did not report the Ops number 1 and 2 immediately about the accident, as required vide section 68 of the ESI Act (General). It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, no claim is payable to the complainants.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of identity certificate issued by ESI, Ex.C-2 copy of contribution detail, Ex.C-3 copy of PAN Card, Ex.C-4 copy of death summary, Ex.C-5 copy of investigation by ESI, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 copies of letters dated 18.7.2014, Ex.C-8 copy of accidental report, Ex.C-9 copy of injury report, Ex.C-10 copy of letter dated 12.9.2014, Ex.C-11 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2  has produced Ex.OP1&2 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             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.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the deceased was an employee of OP number 3 and as such was also having an ESI account with the Ops being an employee covered under the ESI Scheme.  It is further an admitted fact that the deceased remained admitted in the CMC Hospital, Ludhiana where he died on 19.5.2014.  Now, the question before us which arises for determination is whether the complainants are entitled to get the pension or not.

 

8.             In the present case, the complainants have alleged that the deceased suffered head injury during his course of employment on 14.5.2014 and due to that he died on 19.5.2014 in the CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. Now, the grievance of the complainants is that despite visiting the OPs so many times, the Ops did not fix the pension under the ESI Act. On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that no pension is payable as the deceased did not die due to the injury sustained by him during his course of employment, rather he died due to “inverse Fungal Sincrasitis’, as such it is contended that no pension is payable.  Further the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the complainant has produced only the death summary dated 19.6.2014 issued by the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana Ex.C-4, but  has not produced on record the complete treatment record of the deceased Sandeep Singh.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why they did not produce the complete treatment record.   Moreover, a bare perusal of the document Ex.C-5 clearly reveals that as per the clinical record available, it did not appear to be a case of head injury and patient died of Inverse Fungal Sincrasitis, meaning thereby the deceased did not die due to the head injury.    Further we may mention that as per section 68 of the ESI Act (General) Regulation 1950, every employer shall send a report in form number 12 to the appropriate branch office and due to the insurance medical officer of the insured person immediately, if the injury is serious i.e. it is likely to cause death or permanent disablement or loss of a member and in any other cases within 48 hours after the receipt of the notice under regulation 65 or of the time when the accident came to the notice of the employer of a foreman or other official under whose supervision the employee was employed at the time of the accident, but in the present case the intimation of the alleged accident was given only on 15.5.2014 much after the date of accident.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the deceased died due to Inverse Fungal Sincrasitis and not due to any head injury and the Op number 1 and 2 rightly found that the complainants are not covered under employment injury.  

 

9.             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 27, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

 

 

                                                         

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member