STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 08.06.2021 Reserved On : 14.02.2022 Date of decision : 25.02.2022 Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, through its Deputy/Regional Director (through its Social Security Officer Asha Satija, aged 59 years).

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus

1. Gaitari Devi widow of Sh. Devki Nandan son of Sh. Sita Ram, Resident of Mohalla Mori Wala, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

2. Yogesh Pareek son of Sh. Devki Nandan son of Sh. Sita Ram, Resident of Jhadiyon Ka Mohalla, Ward No.8, Pilani (Rural), Jhunjunun (Rajasthan)-333031.

….Respondents/Complainants

3. M/s Surindra Steel Rolling & General Mills, Industrial Estate, Malerkotla, through its Proprietor/Partner.

….Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

4. Employees State Insurance Corporation, through its Manager, Karbala Road, near Dr. Zakir Hussain Stadium, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

….Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued By:-

For the appellant : Sh. Anil Shukla, Advocate For the respondents : None.

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The appellant/opposite party No.2 i.e. Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) through its Deputy/Regional Director has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the impugned order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by respondents No.1 & 2/complainants-Gaitari Devi and Yogesh Pareek was allowed with the directions to the appellant/opposite party No.2 and performa respondent No.4/opposite party No.1 to give benefits i.e. pension etc. to the complainants and the arrears along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 were also directed to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- in lieu of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and also ₹10,000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 60 days of its communication.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that Sh. Devki Nandan, the husband of respondent No.1/complainant (Gaitari Devi) and father of respondent No.2/complainant No.2 (Yogesh Pareek) was an employee of respondent No.3/opposite party No.3. He was insured and was having ESI No.1207222987. During course of employment/working on 09.01.2017, he felt severe chest pain and fell down on the ground. He was taken to Subhan Hospital, Malerkotla, where he was declared dead by the Doctors. A certificate to this effect was also issued by the Doctors, mentioning the cause of death as ‘massive heart attack’ Respondent No.3 submitted the accident report with the appellant and performa respondent No.4 along with all documents. Thereafter, they were informed vide letter dated 10.10.2017 that the case of the deceased did not fall under the definition of ‘Employment Injury’. It was also stated that as per ESI Medical Manual, heart attack at the place of employment comes within the meaning of ‘Employment Injury’.

4. Notice was issued in the complaint filed by the complainants and thereafter, written replies were also filed by the opposite parties.

5. On perusal/appraisal of documents available on the file and on appreciation of evidence, the complaint filed by the complainants was allowed by the District Comm