Telangana High Court
Sri Gundu Satyanarayana, vs The Regional Director, on 28 May, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
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 the fact of dropping at home of friend is not in connection
with the work of the establishment as per Section 51-E.
According to learned Standing Counsel, the Court below had not
interpreted the said provision. He relied on the judgment in
Regional Director, ESI Corporation v. Francis De Costa 1 and
contends that incident occurred had no casual connection with
the employment of deceased and since deceased did not
succumb to death on account of any employment injury,
petitioners are not entitled to pay compensation and dependent
benefits. Learned counsel submitted that the Corporation
approached this Court against the impugned order by filing the
AIR 1997 SC 432
present C.M.A., hence, the said order was not implemented and
the Writ Petition becomes infructuous.
6. From a perusal of the material on record and the
judgment impugned in particular, the only issue that boils down
for consideration is whether death of the employee is in the
course of employment or not.
7. At this juncture, it is quite pertinent to go through
Section 51-E of the Act which reads as under:
" 51-E : Accidents happening while commuting to the
place of work and vice versa: - An accident occurring to an employee
while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty
or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty,
shall be deemed to have risen out of and in the course of employment if
nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident
occurred and the employment is established.
8. It is, no doubt, true that deceased was the
employee under Respondents 3 to 5 and on the fateful day, he
was on duty from 02.00 to 10.00 p.m., as is evident from the
evidence of R.W.2 who was none other than Ex. Managing
Director of Respondents 3 to 5. The ESI Court also observed
in the judgment that during the course of arguments, it was
submitted on behalf of the Establishment that they instructed
deceased to drop Syed Abeed Ali, who was colleague and
friend of deceased and eye witness to the incident, at his
house which is very nearer to the Establishment and since
total routes were closed and on account of traffic jam, police
on duty instructed the motor cyclists to move in a particular
route. Therefore, as per Section 51-E, the incident occurred
while commuting to the house from work place. P.W.2 i.e.
pillion also, in categorical terms, stated in his evidence that
on the date of incident, himself and deceased were in the
second shift from 02.00 to 10.00 p.m. and since there was
heavy rain in the city, they closed the show room at 08.00
p.m. but they could not go out immediately; after the rain
stopped, as his residence is very near to the show room, he
asked the deceased to stay back in their house for the night;
deceased was riding the vehicle; there was a traffic jam and
police asked them to go in lane by one route and they reached
near RTC Colony, Thirumalgheri at about 09.30 P.M; there
was a drainage and all of a sudden flood water pushed and
both of them washed away with motor cycle but somehow he
could escape and reached the bank at about 11.30 P.M. It
clearly establishes the nexus between the circumstances, time
and place in which the incident occurred and the employment
is established.
9. In view of the above, it is clear that the incident
occurred while commuting to residence after completion of
work. Hence, the provision under Section 51-E attracts to this
case. However, the ESI Court, in the absence of material or
evidence produced by petitioners substantiating the claim for
Rs.10 lacs towards compensation in addition to dependant's
benefits as contemplated and envisaged under Section 52 of the
Act, allowed the EIC in part with costs directing the ESI
Corporation to assess and quantify the dependant's benefits as
envisaged under Section 52 of the Act and petitioners are
entitled to dependants' benefit in fixed proportions as per Rules
in vogue.
10. In the light of the above, this Court does not find
any merit in the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel,
hence, it is of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to the
benefits as provided under Section 52 of the Act. The Writ
Petition therefore, deserves to be allowed. Consequently, C.M.A.
fails.
11. Writ Petition No. 11562 of 2018 is allowed directing
respondents to implement the order dated 01.08.2017 in
E.I.C.No. 4 of 2013 on the file of the Employees' State Insurance
Court-cum-Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad within
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
C.M.A.No. 642 of 2018 is dismissed. No costs.
12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
28th May 2025
Issue CC forthwith.
ksld
