LAWS(KAR)-1994-7-12

CHANDRAHASA N SHANBHAG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 27, 1994
CHANDRAHASA N.SHANBHAG Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that is involved in this writ petition is as to whether the minor unmarried sister of an insured person will be a member of the family as defined under Section 2(11) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The above section reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner claims reimbursement of the amount whic his spent for the treatment of his sister who was an unmarried minor on that date. The respondent-Corporation refused to extend the benefits on the ground that an unmarried minor sister will not come within the purview of the "family" as defined under the Act. The correctness of this view has to be decided in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his case will come under sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(11) as the child mentioned therein need not necessarily be his child but any child including a sister will be included within that clause. On going through the said section as a whole, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of the petitioner. By sub-clause (ii) of Section 2(11), a minor legitimate or adopted child dependent upon the insured person will be one of the relatives included in the family. Sub-clause (iii) there mentions that a child who is (a) wholly dependent upon the insured person and who is receiving education, till he or she attains the age of twenty-one years and (b) an unmarried daughter will also be included in the term "family". Admittedly, the petitioner cannot come under clause (b), for, it will take in only an unmarried daughter; whereas, here the case is that of a sister. The only further question to be decided is, whether she comes under clause (iii)(a). Under clause (ii) of Section 2(11) only a minor legitimate or adopted child dependent upon the insured person will be a member of the family. Though normally only a minor child will be included within the ambit of clause (ii) the benefit is extended by including a child who is receiving education till he or she attains 21 years of age. In other words, on a reading of sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) it is clear that while under clause (ii) only a minor child i.e., a child of the insured alone will come within its ambit; under sub-clause (iii) a child who is wholly dependent on the earnings of the insured person will also be included as a member of the family, provided, he or she is receiving education till he or she attains 21 years. The ambit of clause (ii) is expanded by clause (iii) in two cases. It can be seen that coverage is given only to the child of the insured under sub-clause (ii) and affortiori for inclusion in sub-clause (iii) also the person must be the child of the insured. The argument of the petitioner that any child whether he or she be the son, daughter or sister would come within clause (iii) cannot be accepted. A reading of sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) together would abundantly make it clear that only the child of the insured is intended to be included as one of the relatives coming within the family and not a sister or brother. It is to be noted that Section 2(11) was substituted by Act 29 of 1989 and the objects and reasons of the amending Act would support the view which I have taken. Accordingly, I hold that the sister of the insured even if she is unmarried and minor will not come within the ambit of the definition "family" given in Section 2(11) and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In view of what is stated above, I do not find any good ground to interfere and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.