HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 11562 OF 2018 AND C.M.A.No. 642 OF 2018

COMMON ORDER:

Petitioners in Writ Petition claim to be the parents of Sri Gundu Praveen Kumar (deceased). They filed Writ Petition seeking implementation of the Judgment dated 01.08.2017 in E.I.C.No. 4 of 2018 on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (ESI Court), whereas the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) filed C.M.A. questioning the said judgment.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in Writ Petition.

3. The case of petitioners is that their son while working as Sales Executive in Respondents 3 to 5 establishment (for short, ‘the Employer’), on 09.08.2008, on the instructions of his employer, along with his co-employee namely Syed Javeed were on their way home, after completion of their shift, on motor cycle bearing Registration No. AP 29 AA 5917, and all of a sudden due to raising of flood water, the deceased inundated and pillion Syed Javeed could escape unhurt. Petitioners are stated to have made a complaint before Alwal Police vide Crime No. 331 of 2008 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. who after getting the Post-mortem examination conducted, handed over dead body to petitioners. According to petitioners, wife of deceased remarried and left their house leaving their child to take care of by them, thus, they are all dependent on the earnings of the deceased. In this regard, petitioners submitted legal heir certificate issued by the Special Executive Magistrate dated 19.09.2008 and House hold card issued by the revenue department clearly indicating that they are related to deceased. It is stated, the deceased at the time of death was working as Senior Executive under Respondents 3 to 5 and earning Rs.10,500/- per month. The employer intimated the death of deceased vide letter dated 11.08.2008 to IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 39465147 claiming insurance of two wheeler and advised petitioners also to claim the same and to approach the departments concerned which establishes that deceased was employee of Respondents 3 to 5. Petitioners under Regulation 80 as per Form-18 of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ‘the Act’) Insurance No. 52- 5186477 submitted Application for dependent benefits under RPAD on 31.07.2012 indicating the details and it was received by respondents, but there was no action. They therefore, approached the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and filed W.C.No. 1 of 2008 while respondents informed that deceased employee was covered by the Act, returned the case to approach the appropriate forum vide order dated 17.09.2012. Hence, petitioners filed the mentioned E.I.C. before the ESI Court under Section 75(1) of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.10 lacs and dependant benefits with interest at 18% per annum from the date of incident with costs. The ESI Court vide judgment impugned directed ESI Corporation to assess and quantify the dependant’s benefits as envisaged under Section 52 of the Act and that petitioners’ are entitled to dependant’s benefits in fixed proportions as per Rules in vogue. Petitioners therefore, submitted representation to respondents on 26.09.2017 to implement the said judgment, but till date, the same was not considered.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners – dependants Ms. Vedula Chitralekha submits that the incident occurred in the course of employment and it is not the death due to bodily ailment.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for ESI Corporation Sri B.G. Ravinder Reddy based on the averments in the counter, submits that the ESI Court ought to have seen that deceased had left the establishment and was taking his friend to his house after the working hours which can neither be considered as during the course of employment nor out of employment as the deceased employees’ course of employment terminated when he left the office at 090.30 P.M. and th