FA/735/2002 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 735 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ================================================= ====================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any Order made thereunder? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? NO ================================================= ====================== REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION - Appellant Versus SUBHADRABEN, WIDOW OF RAMANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER - Defendants ================================================= ====================== Appearance : MR. B.P. BHATT for the Appellant. MRS. YOGINI V. PARIKH for Defendants : 1 - 2. Defendant : 3 deleted. ================================================= ====================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 07/12/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act against the judgment and order dated 25-05-2001 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, FA/735/2002 2/5 JUDGMENT Ahmedabad in ESI Application No. 54 of 1994. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: Deceased Ramanbhai Somabhai Patel met with the accident on 12-01-1994 and sustained injuries. He subsequently succumbed to the injuries while going to the hospital. The distraught heirs and legal representatives of deceased Ramanbhai Patel have preferred the application under Section 74 of the ESI Act before the learned Judge of the ESI Court. After taking into consideration the evidence on record of the case, the learned Judge allowed the application of the claimants vide order dated 25-05-2001 and held that the deceased was an insured person vide his Insurance No. 37- 1060158 and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to the benefits, as provided under the Employees State Insurance Act (“the ESI Act”, for short). 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Judge, the Regional Director, ESI Corporation has preferred the present appeal wherein learned Advocate Mr. B. P. Bhatt has raised the only contention that the ESI Court has not appreciated the evidence on record of the case in proper perspective. The learned Advocate submitted that even though there was no nexus between the injuries sustained by the deceased Ramanbhai and the subsequent death, the ESI Court has committed error in holding that the deceased sustained injuries during the course of employment and, therefore, the legal heirs and representatives are entitled to claim of the benefits under the Act. Save and except this submission, no other submission is urged by the learned FA/735/2002 3/5 JUDGMENT Advocate representing the appellant. 4. As against the above submission, learned Advocate Mrs. Yogini V. Parikh representing the claimants submitted that on perusal of the deposition adduced by applicant No. 1 vide Exh. 16 as well as witness Nirmalsinh Champaksinh vide Exh. 17, it becomes clear that the deceased met with the accident during the course of employment. He sustained serious injuries in the thigh and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries due to the hemorrhage and chest infection as per the post-mortem report. The learned Advocate submitted that the accident in question took place on 12-01-1994 at 12 Noon. The deceased was immediately rushed to the hospital at Bapunagar where he was declared as dead. On perusal of the post-mortem report, it becomes clear that the deceased sustained injuries during the course of employment and, therefore, the learned Judge has rightly allowed the application filed by the claimants and awarded the benefits to which they are entitled to under the provisions of ESI Act. The learned Advocate submitted that as the nexus between the injuries and the subsequent death has been duly established, the learned Judge has rightly allowed the application and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. B. P. Bhatt for the appellant and Mrs. Yogini V. Parikh for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at length and in great detail. Respondent No. 3 has been deleted in view of the earlier order passed by this Court. I have also perused the record and proceedings of the lower Court. FA/735/2002 4/5 JUDGMENT 6. Considering the deposition adduced by applicant No. 1 vide Exh. 16 and witness Nirmalsinh Champaksinh vide Exh. 17, it is clear that deceased Ramanbhai was working in the factory and he sustained injuries on his leg during the course of employment. The accident in question took place on 12-01- 1994 at 12 Noon and the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 1.15 PM before he could be taken to the Bapunagar General Hospital. Post-mortem Report mentions about the injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of the death. The deceased suffered hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment. He was profusely bleeding when he actually sustained the injuries. The deceased died before reaching the hospital. Thus, on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the deceased sustained injuries during the course of employment in the factory and he succumbed to the injuries immediately thereafter and even could not reach the hospital in time. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the argument canvassed on behalf of the Insurance Company that there was no nexus between the injuries and the subsequent death of the deceased Ramanbhai has no substance. Save and except this contention, no other contention is raised by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is liable to fail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER FA/735/2002 5/5 JUDGMENT The appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Judge on 25-05-2001 by the Employees Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Application No. 54 of 1994 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. Decree to be drawn accordingly. [H. B. ANTANI, J.] /shamnath