( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) PRAKASH Chandrakant Shreshti (hereinafter called 'the deceased') was working as a cleaner in Vehicle No. MH 09a 9727. The said vehicle belonged to respondent no. 1. He was travelling in the said vehicle in the night of 27. 9. 2002. He suddenly developed chest pain. He was admitted to Government Hospital, Mangaon where the doctor declared him dead. Indisputably, the incident had occurred while deceased was performing his duties.

( 3 ) APPELLANT herein, the mother of deceased filed a Claim Petition under the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act') before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation which was registered as wca/sr719/2003. The vehicle being insured with the United India Insurance Company, it was also impleaded as a party.

( 4 ) THE fact that at the time of his death, the deceased was discharging his duties is not disputed. The autopsy was conducted wherein the cause of death was opined as cardiac arrest due to Rupture Aortic Aneurysm. No injury on his body was found. The only evidence which was brought on record was by way of deposition of appellant. It was alleged : ". . . . . . . . . . My son died while working in the vehicle of R-1 and due to the strain of work. . . . . . . . . "

( 5 ) A copy of the Claim Petition has not been placed before us. We, therefore, are not sure as to whether there was any requisite pleading. The first respondent, however, in his objection stated :

". . . It is further true that the said vehicle is used for carrying the milk and on 27. 9. 2002 at about 9. 15 hours, the driver of the said vehicle Parasharam Chandrakant and the deceased cleaner Prakash Chandrakant came to the Tavarewadi Chilling centre for bringing the milk from Kolhapur, at that time, the deceased-cleaner while getting down from the said vehicle got pain in the chest and sat on the ground and immediately the driver of the said vehicle taken him to dispensary to Government hospital, Mangaon. The doctor of the said hospital stated that deceased-cleaner died due to cardiac arrest. It is true that the said deceased died in the course of his employment under this respondent No. 1. "

( 6 ) THE Insurer raised a plea of collusion between the employer and appellant in its written statement. It, however, need not be adverted to.

( 7 ) THE Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation raised several issues. The issue with which we are concerned is Issue No. 2, which is as under : "2. Whether the accident occurred during the course of employment and out of employment?"

( 8 ) THE Workmen's Compensation Commissioner did not analyze the evidence on record. It did not arrive at a finding that the deceased met with an accident. It proceeded on the basis that deceased being a workman, it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to maintain registers under the provisions of the Minimum wages Act.

( 9 ) THE Commissioner, however, dealt with the legal issue as regards meaning of 'accidents and injury', observing :

"15. The more usual case of an accident is an event happening externally to a man. The less obvious cases of accident are strain causing rupture, bursting of aneurism, failure of muscular action of the heart, exposure to draught causing chill, exertion in a stokehold causing apoplexy, shock causing neurasthenia etc. Lord Atkin called them as "internal Accident". In such cases, it is hardly possible to distinguish in time between the 'accident' and 'injury'. The rupture is an accident, at the same time injury leading to death or incapacity at once or after a lapse of time. Thus in cases of internal accidents, "accidents" and "injury" coincide.

16. What the Act, therefore, really intends to convey is what might be expressed as an 'accidental injury'. But the common factor in all cases of accident, whether 'internal' or 'external' is some concrete happening at a definite point of time and incapacity resulting from happening.

17. An accident happening to a person in o