The Division Bench set aside the Employees State Insurance Court's judgment dismissing the appellant's petition for pension as she was already receiving benefits from the respondent corporation, noting no further order was needed.
Impugned judgment of ESI Court set aside; no further order required as claim satisfied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No.411 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.411 of 2012 Date of decision: 19.07.2013
Bhateri Devi
......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s R.B. Automotives Shyam Colony & anr. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Sandeep Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
As per the facts, son of the appellant, namely, Laxman, was employed with respondent No.1. He met with an accident on 2.6.2005 while returning to his office after delivering the goods to a consignee on Motor Cycle bearing No.HR-17D-5902 and died. FIR No.186 dated 2.6.2005 was registered against the driver of bus bearing No.HR-36PA0138.
The appellant filed a claim petition before the Employees State Insurance Court, Rohtak, claiming that she was entitled to compensation as her son had died during the course of employment with respondent No.1. A request was also made to respondent No.2. Her request to pay pension etc. was not accepted and in this regard she was informed by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 24.11.2006.
Thus, she filed the instant petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to pay pension according to her entitlement and
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.411 of 2012
2
also to pay arrears of pension.
Upon notice, respondent No.1 admitted that son of the appellant was employed with it and the accident occurred during the course of employment. However, it was claimed that respondent No.1 was insured with respondent No.2 and all benefits were to be allowed/paid by the said Insurance Company.
In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it was admitted that son of the appellant was employed with respondent No.1 however, other allegations with regard to the accident having occurred during the course of employment were denied.
The Employees State Insurance Court, Rohtak, vide its judgment dated 23.8.2011 dismissed the petition holding that the employee had not died during the course of employment. This is how the instant appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment of ESI Court.
It may be relevant at this stage that respondent No.2 independently got investigated the occurrence of accident and after verifying the genuineness of the claim of the appellant, accepted the same and vide letter dated 1.9.2011 informed her that her claim has been accepted and she was eligible for the payments as per the details in the said letter.
It may further be noticed, at this stage, that the appellant is receiving pension and other benefits to which she is entitled to from the respondent-Corporation.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions from Sh. A.K. Verma, SSO, Panchkula, has very fairly stated that the appellant shall continue to receive the aforesaid payment in accordance with law/rules.
In view thereof, this appeal is accepted. The impugned
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3
FAO No.411 of 2012
judgment of the Employees State Insurance Court, Rohtak, dated 23.8.2011 is set aside. However, the claim of the appellant having been satisfied, no further order is required to be passed.
Disposed of.
July 19, 2013 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.29 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be accepted and the ESI Court's dismissal of the pension claim set aside.
Bhateri Devi
M/s R.B. Automotives
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
