Rahul, the bus conductor fell unconscious in the bus itself at the end of the work and died subsequently. The medical evidence was very clear that the accident had no connection with the employment and it was certified t

Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and Section 51A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 lays down that an accident arising in the course of an employee's employment is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have arisen out of employment. Though the provisions of the Act demand liberal interpretation, at the same time the ESI corporation is not liable to pay compensation for the dependent's benefit if the death has no connection with the employment. When the person dies due to a natural disease, it has no connection with employment. ( Regional Director ESI Corporation, Trissur Vs. K Sainaba, 2005 ). Since the medical evidence case was very clear that the accident had no connection with employment and it was medically certified that the bus conductor died due to advanced liver disease. The stress or strain of the work will not cause such death. The claimant too did not produce any medical evidence. Therefore, the dependent benefits claim in the form of compensation was rejected. But the court awarded sickness and funeral benefits. The employer's refusal to pay dependent benefits is valid as the death was not connected to employment. However, the claimant may still be entitled to funeral expenses under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and other statutory benefits like gratuity, provident fund, and unpaid dues, if applicable.