The interesting question for judicial resolution in this case is as to whether the suicide of an employee owing to depressive neurosis consequent on an employment injury sustained by him would furnish a cause of action for his dependents to make a claim for dependents' benefits under Sec. 52 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to "the Act" for short).

2. In this appeal filed under Sec. 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to "the Corporation" for short), which was the first opposite party before the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to "the E . I. Court" for short), challenges the order dated 17-5-2005 of the E. I. Court in I.C. 84 of 2003.

3. The following are the questions of law formulated in the memoradum of Appeal filed by the Corporation:-

i) Whether the E.I. Court is justified in ordering death benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased who committed suicide while taking rest at home in pursuance of an injury sustained to him ?

ii) Committing suicide being an illegal and forbidden act, the legal heirs whether entitled to get death benefits alleging suicide as an employment injury.

iii) In the absence of medical evidence to substantiate the mental condition of the deceased employee who admittedly committed suicide while taking rest at home can be construed as an employment injury under the E.S.I. Act ?

iv) Whether the finding based on conjunctures and surmises is sustainable in law ?

v) Whether the E. I. Court has correctly followed the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Francis De Costa's cases reported in 1996 (2) KLT 799 ?

4. I heard Advocate Sri. Sandesh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation, Adv. Sri. Ashok Shenoi, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Advocate Sri. K. Anand, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent/employer.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT/E.S.I.CORPORATION

5. Assailing the impugned order passed by the E.I. Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation made the following submissions before me :-

The order passed by the E. I. Court on the footing that the suicide committed by Appunni was as a result of neurotic depression is not supported by any medical evidence in that behalf. AW2 the Doctor who treated Appunni from the Out-patient Section of the District Hospital, Palakkad has not stated that Appunni was suffering from any acute neurotic depression consequent on the employment injury. In the absence of any medical evidence to the effect that Appunni was suffering from anxiety neurosis consequent on the injury sustained by him and the said morbid condition drove him to commit suicide, the E.I. Court was not entitled to hold that the death of Appunni had a causal connection with the employment injury. AW2 the doctor has only stated that the injury to Appunni might have caused depression resulting in suicide and that there are occasions when such patients show anxiety neurosis. From such evidence alone it was not permissible for the E.I. Court to record such a finding, especially when the act of committing suicide is an illegal act prohibited by law. Moreover, the injury sustained by Appunni was not serious enough to drive him to commit suicide. The decisions relied on by the applicants are to be confined to the particular facts situation available in those cases.

JUDICIAL RESOLUTION

6. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions made on behalf of the

E.S.I. Corporation.

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

7. The facts leading to the impugned order can be summarised as follows:-

A. Appunni who was aged 42 was employed as a helper in the factory of M/s. Sivasakthi Engineering and Fabricators at Poolampara, Walayar Post, Palakkad. He was an insured employee getting a daily wages of Rs. 92.40. He was residing in a thatched house at Attapallam, Pampampallam Post in Pudussery East Village.