Judgments related to Employees’ State Insurance Act and Employee's Compensation Act :

 

Judgments related to Employees’ State Insurance Act and Employee's Compensation Act :

1E. S.I. Act u/s 28, 53 and 61bar u/s 53 and 61 against receiving of compensation under any other Law employee of Telecom Dept., insured under E.S.I. Acthe was traveling in department's jeep – met with accident fatal contention raised that in view of

the bar imposed u/s 53 and 61 of E.S.I Act, claim petition under M.V is not maintainable whether sustainable held no. section 28 does not cover accidental death while traveling in a vehicle on road and therefore claim petition under M.V. Act is maintainable

2012 ACJ 233, 2016 ACJ 265 (P&H)

2Employee insured under the ESI Scheme Whether claim petition under the M.V. Act or W.C. Act is maintainable? Held No.

2013 ACJ 865

But claim petition is maintainable when it is not filed against employer. ESI Act does not bar right to claim compensation against third party under the MV Act.

2013 ACJ 1581

3Employee's Compensation Act – Driver of ST bus – his LR can file claim petition either before MACT or under Employee's Compensation but not under both.

2015 ACJ 20 (Guj) Gulamrashul

Malek v/s/ GSRTC, Guidelines in this regar – 2015 ACJ 1936(Mad)

4 Ex Gratia payment can be deducted from the final amount of compensation? Held No.

2015 ACJ 168 (MP)

 

5. Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Section 53 – Bar against receiving compensation under the M V Act – IC failed to prove that accident occurred during the course of employment of the deceased. Claim petition u/s 166 maintainable.

2018 ACJ 655 (MP)

Life Insurance:

1Life Insurance and/or Group insurance Double accident

Benefit Whether can be allowed. Held ; Yes

2014 ACJ 1237, 2022 ACJ 1156(Kar)

2 Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy taken by the

employer of the deceased – amount received there under

can be deducted from the amount of compensation? Held ; No.

2017 ACJ 87 (Kar) – Helen C. Rebello MSTRC, 1999 ACJ

10 (SC) and Vimal Kanwar vs. Kishore Dan, 2013 ACJ

1441 (SC) followed.

 

Medical Reimbursement:

1Medical reimbursement claimant got the same as he was medically insured whether IC is under statutory duty to pay medical bill, though same is reimbursement by the claimant held

– no IC is not statutorily liable to pay medical bill as same is

reimbursed under medical policy

2011 ACJ 2447 (DEL), 2016 ACJ 807 (Ker)

Family Pension:

1Quantum Medical Policy whether amount received under the medical policy is deductible from the amount of compensation? Held No. SC decisions referred.

2012 ACJ 1114 (Ker) – Family pension is also

like wise2012

ACJ 1197(Bom), 2015 ACJ 1195

(Cal)

 Compassionate Appointment:

1Compassionate appointment given to widow whether Tribunal can deduct dependency benefit on that count? Held ; No.

2012 (2) GLH 246.Girishbhai Devjibhai, 2012 AAC 3065 (All)SC

judgments followed. 2013 ACJ 129 (P&H). 2014 ACJ 822 (Guj). 2017 ACJ 2051 = AIR 2017 SC 2580 – N I I Com. vs. Rekhaben. 2019 ACJ 621 (Jha), 2022 ACJ 1913 (Ori)

But in the recent decision, Supreme Court (FB) has

taken contrary view Please refer 2016 ACJ 2723

= 2016 (9) SCC 627 = AIR 2016 SC 4465 – Reliance

General Insurance Com. V/s Shashi Sharma.

2 In the decision rendered by the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of LIC v. L.R. of deceased

Naranbhai, reported in 1972 GLR 920, it is held that

the amounts received by the claimant on account of

the insurance taken by him for his own benefit and

with his own money, is a collateral benefit and such

benefit could not be deducted from the compensation

amount. The coordinate Bench of this Court in a case

viz. Dayaljibhai Manibhai Patel v. Erachsha Dhanjisha

Variyava in First Appeal No. 402 of 1986 has decided

on 28th July, 2006, had taken a same view.