The court established a casual connection between the death of the worker and the use of the motor vehicle, interpreting the definition of 'accident' under the Workmen's Compensation Act and holding the insurer liable for compensation.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of an order dated 27th january, 1992 passed by the commissioner for workmen's compensation, belgaum in cwc. sr. 18/91, awarding a compensation of Rs. 32,6157- as compensation to the widow of one lagma yellappa jathani for the death of her husband lagma on 8-8-1990 in the course of his employment as a coolie under respondents 1 and 2 before the commissioner, who are the owners of a tractor-trailor bearing No. Cra 5534, 5536 and 5537 and directing the respondent 3-insurer to pay the compensation.

( 2 ) M. F. A. 1015 of 1992 is filed by the 3rd respondent-insurance company questioning the correctness of the order directing them to pay the compensation. M. f. a 1602 of 1992 is filed by the petitioner before the commissioner, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred by the rank they held before the commissioner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner claimed compensation before the commissioner on theallegations that her husband was employed as a coolie on the tractor owned by respondents 1 and 2, who are brothers; that when he was unloading stones from the tractor on 8-8-1990 at about 11-30 a. m. he went to pass urine near by; that he suddenly fell and started vomiting; that he was taken to the hospital at konnur for treatment but he expired there; and that as her husband died during the course of employment she was entitled to compensation. According to her, the deceased was getting daily wages of rs, 50/- and she was therefore entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,0007- apart from 50% by way of penalty and Rs. 5,0007- by way of interest.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 admitted that lagma was employed by them to work on the tractor and that on 8-8-1990 he died during the course of employment due to heart attack. The only objection that was taken by them was that as the death was not caused due to accident, they were not liable to pay the compensation. They further pleaded that even if any compensation was payable, the 3rd respondent-insurer had to pay the same.

( 6 ) THE 3rd respondent denied all the allegations in the petition, including the fact of the insurance of the vehicle. However, later the 3rd respondent has admitted the fact of insurance by producing the insurance policy, which has been marked as ex. A (1i) (1 ).

( 7 ) THE petitioner examined herself in support of her case. Respondent 2 examined himself and one witness on his side. The 3rd respondent examined one of its officers.

( 8 ) THE commissioner on the basis of the available evidence has come to the conclusion that the deceased lagma had been employed by the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the tractor and traitor, as a labourer to work on the vehicle; that on 8-8-1990 the deceased had gone for the work of loading and unloading of stones to and from the tractor-trailor; and that in the course of such work lagma died. He has further held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation and that the 3rd respondent, who is the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay the same. With regard to the quantum he has disbelieved the claim of the petitioner that the deceased was getting wages of Rs. 50/- per day. Taking the income of the deceased to be Rs. 16/- per day or Rs. 400/- per month, which is the notified minimum wages and taking the age of the deceased to be 32 years, he has fixed the compensation payable at Rs. 32,615/ -.

( 9 ) IN this appeal it is not disputed that the deceased lagma was employed as labourer on the tractor-trailor for the purpose of loading and unloading and that he died when he had gone for work. The learned counsel for the insurer mainly urged 3 points in support of their appeal. He firstly contended that as in this case admittedly lagma died only due to heart attack and not on account of any injury sustained by accident, Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, would not come into play at all and that the commission