IMPORTANT POINT
Accident in course of employment must have some causal connection.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 09.06.2016 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 858 of 2015.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner, in his complaint, has alleged that he was working as a Sweeper with respondent no.6, i.e. M/s Bajaj Sons Ltd. and the ESI deductions were being made from his salary. His Insurance number was 2609459034. On 04.08.2011, while coming out of the factory while going to his house, he suffered an accident in the course of his employment and suffered injuries on his left leg and left shoulder. He was not in his senses and was taken to the hospital by the passers-by and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, and thereafter was admitted in ESI Hospital, Ludhiana, on 05.08.2011. On 13.08.2011, the petitioner was referred to Mediciti, which refused to treat him and he got himself admitted in Military Hospital, Jalandhar, and thereafter was shifted to Delhi. There was no treatment available at that place and, as such, he was got admitted in Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. During his treatment, his left leg was operated and the bone of that leg was cut. The petitioner spent a huge amount for the treatment and after that operation, he was not in a position to work properly. No treatment was given regarding the injury on the shoulder and as a result thereof his left arm was not working and he has become disabled for life. On account of this disablement, he was entitled to receive the pension from respondent no.1-Corporation and was also entitled to the reimbursement of the amount spent by him on his treatment. It had been informed that on account of non-submission of the mandatory Accident Report by respondent no.6, the pension had not been granted to the petitioner. As he had no control over that respondent no.6, it was the duty of the Officer of respondent no.1-Corporation to get the Accident Report from the petitioner, if he was reluctant to submit the same. On account of the non-acceptance of his legal claim, he sent a legal notice dated 04.09.2013 to the respondents, through his counsel, and was told to submit the bills in original. When he went, along with the bills, he was told that he should come after submission of the Accident Report by respondent no.6. Neither the amount spent by him on his treatment was reimbursed nor was the Disability Pension given, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. He was entitled to payment of the bills, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, and also to the monthly pension, in addition to Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him on account of the said deficiency in service.

3. The complaint was contested by the respondents. Respondent nos.1, 2 & 4 filed their joint written reply before the District Forum; in which they have admitted that the petitioner was working as a Sweeper with respondent no.6 and ESI contribution were being deducted from his salary. While disputing the other allegations made in the complaint, they averred that no notice of the accident, as required under Regulation 68 of ESI (General) Regulations, 1950 (in short, “the Regulations”), was received from respondent no.6 and no documentary evidence was submitted by the petitioner regarding his treatment. For reimbursement of the medical treatment, the petitioner was required to submit his claim to the concerned ESI Dispensary, so allotted to him. The petitioner did not furnish any FIR or Medico-legal Report and the inquiry revealed that as per the employee’s record, “employment injury” had not occurred to him. The legal notice sent by him was duly replied. The petitioner had already been paid the Sickness Benefit/Extended Sickness Benefit of Rs.7,917.00 + Rs.60,588.00 = Rs.68,505.00, as per his entitlement under the provisions of the Employees State