IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Ins.APP.No. 24 of 2007 ------------------------ IC.108/2005 of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS (APPLICANTS) ----------------------------------------- 1. MARIYAMMA, W/O. K.D.VINCENT, KOTTAKAD, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. LURDE, D/O. K.D.VINCENT, KOTTAKAD, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS (OPPOSITE PARTY) ------------------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR-20. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN. FOR R1 THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== INAP No.24 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.108 of 2005. It relates to a claim regarding funeral expenses. The E.I. Court held that the deceased would not come under the definition of an insured person and the payment of amount at the rate of Rs.10/- is only for the purpose of deriving medical benefits under Rule 61 of the Employees State Insurance(Central) Rules, 1950 and therefore the applicants are not entitled to claim funeral expenses. Learned counsel for the appellants contends before me that the interpretation given by the court regarding contribution is incorrect and contribution means the contribution contemplated under Section 2(4) of the Act and so when contribution is paid it comes within the ambit of Section 2(14) of the Employees State Insurance Act relating to an insured person and therefore they are entitled to get funeral expenses. The definition of insured person is as follows under Section 2(14). Insured person means “ a person who is or was an employee in respect of whom contributions are or were payable INAP 24/2007 -:2:- under this Act and who is by reason thereof, entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act. The term 'contribution' is defined under Section 2(4). Contribution means the sum of money payable to the Corporation by the principal employer in respect of an employee and includes any amount payable by or on behalf of the employee, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. When a person attains superannuation there is no mandate or obligation on him to pay any further amount towards contribution as contemplated under Section 2(4) of the Act. But in the Employees State Insurance(Central) Rules, 1950, rule 61 envisages a situation where retired persons are entitled to medical benefits and for that purpose rule 61(ii) would state that “the payment of contribution at the rate of Rs.10/- per month in lump sum for one year at a time in advance to the concerned officer of the Corporation in the manner prescribed by it”. A reading of Section 2(4), 2(14) and rule 61 conjointly would show that rule 61 medical benefit is an optional benefit which can be derived by a retired employee on payment of Rs.10/- as envisaged therein. Therefore the payment of Rs.10/- towards contribution in order to entitle a person to get the medical benefits under rule 61 cannot be said to be a contribution which is meant under Section 2(4) of the Employees State Insurance Act. What is contemplated under Section 2(4) is an imperative obligation cast upon the employerand INAP 24/2007 -:3:- employee to pay certain amount towards contribution for entitlement of benefits envisaged under the Act. But, whereas the contribution meant under rule 61 is only an optional one if the employee after retirement wanted to avail the medical benefits. Similarly a reading of section 2(14) without the contribution is paid one cannot come within the definition of an insured person. When there is no statutory obligation cast upon a person but an option is given for his own benefit one cannot classify him as an insured person as contemplated under Section 2(14) for the purpose of claiming funeral expenses. Therefore, I agree with the finding of the E.I.Court and hold that the appellants herein are not entitled to claim funeral benefits under the statute. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-