1. This appeal is preferred by the respondent in W.C.No.3 of 2001 aggrieved by the award dated 04.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur.

2. The aforesaid compensation case was filed claiming that the first claimant is the widow and claimants 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the deceased, U. Ramanjaneyulu. The deceased is said to be working with the appellant as a driver on the lorry transporting various products from the mill to the destination points, as directed by his superiors. It was stated that the deceased had a driving license marked as Ex.A1 and since 01.07.1999 till his death on 23.01.2000, he was working as such. It is stated that he had taken the lorry load and he was away for about 9 days and the day on which he returned from duty, he suffered a massive heart attack and chest pain and died. While he was taken to the hospital in Guntakal Municipality, the doctors there pronounced him dead by issuing a medical certificate Ex.A2 and the Guntakal Municipality issued death certificate, Ex.A3. The deceased being employed with the appellant is evidenced by certificate of employment, Ex.A4. The claim for compensation, accordingly, was made on the ground that the death of the driver occurred during and in the course of employment, as immediately after completion of duties when he came home between 12 AM to 1 AM, he suffered chest pain at 2 AM and died thereafter.

3. The appellant – employer contested the said claim, primarily, contending that the said death is not during or in the course of employment and that while working the deceased neither suffered any injury nor complained of chest pain and as such, the employer is no way responsible for its driver dying out of heart attack while at home.

4. The first claimant is examined as A.W.1 and her father was examined as A.W.2 whereas the doctors, who examined the deceased and who gave the medical certificate were examined as A.Ws.3 and 4 respectively. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked for the claimants and the crucial documents are already referred to in the paragraphs above. Oral evidence of managing director was adduced on behalf of the respondent.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and legal contentions raised by both sides, the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the death has occurred at about 4.30 AM due to strain of heavy work, which accelerated to chest pain and ultimate death of the deceased. Hence, it is closely connected with the employment and consequently, held that the employer is liable to pay compensation. The Commissioner, thereafter, assessed the wages of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages described under G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 16.04.1991 at Rs.2,000/- and keeping in view the age of the deceased as 26 years, by applying the relevant factor, quantified the compensation at Rs.2,15,280/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is preferred by the employer but denied his liability on various grounds.

6. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated his contentions that the death is unconnected with the employment and consequently, the liability cast on the appellant on that basis under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION v. FRANCIS DE COSTA (1996) 6 SCC 1) which was a case arising under a claim of employee under the ESI Act for injuries caused in an accident, which occurred while the employee was riding on his bicycle to his office and had suffered an accident 15 minutes before he reached the destination when he was 1 KM away from his office. The Supreme Court had considered the phrase “in the course of employment” occurring under the ESI Act and came to hold that the accident should have its origin in the employment and the injury caused in an accident while the employee was going to his