RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923 (for short, "the Act") by the original employer directed against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation (for short, 'commissioner') on 3-1-2003 in W. C. No. 1061 of2001.

( 2 ) THE material facts leading to the present appeal are as under: the applicant 1 is the widow of the deceased Latif, applicants 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased. The applicants jointly preferred an application for compensation due to the death of Latif out of and in the course of employment from the appellant-Corporation. The deceased was a driver of the appellant-Corporation appointed on 7-1-1982. The accident in question arose on 19-11-2001, at about 7 a. m. The deceased was in charge of the bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation discharged his duties of driving the said bus from Bellary on 17-11-2001, reached Mysore at 6 a. m. on 18-11-2001. Thereafter, the deceased drove the vehicle on its return journey to Bellary, by starting at 7 p. m. , from mysore and reached Bellary on 19-11-2001 at 7 a. m. While at the bus- stand at Bellary in the bus itself, the deceased Latif complained of acute pain in the chest and by the time, he was removed to the hospital, he was declared dead. The deceased Latif died due to a heart attack. The applicants filed the application for compensation as the death of Latif was due to personal injury sustained by him out of and in the course of employment with the appellant-Corporation.

( 3 ) THE appellant-Corporation resisted the application by filing the written statement and contended that the deceased workman had died a natural death. It was, thus, denied that the deceased had died due to injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. It was also denied that the applicants were entitled to the compensation.

( 4 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner settled six issues for decision making. For the purpose of this appeal, the appellant having questioned the findings on issue 2, alone, it will be sufficient to cull out the said issue.

( 5 ) THE applicants relied upon the evidence of the widow of the deceased smt. Marembee and also the documents exhibited in the application.

( 6 ) ON appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Commissioner held that the workman had died due to the injury in the course of employment and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,06,180/- to the applicants under Section 3 of the Act.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and award, the appellant-Corporation has filed this miscellaneous first appeal questioning the finding on issue 2 that the workman had died due to the injury in the course of employment. The controversy therefore, in this appeal is circumscribed in a very narrow compass. The only question that requires to be determined whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the death of the workman due to heart attack can be termed as a 'employment injury' under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? If not, what order?

( 8 ) THE deceased workman was working as a driver. He was assigned with duties to drive the bus on 17-11-2001 at about 8 p. m. to depart from bellary to reach Mysore at 6 p. m. on the next day that is 18-11-2001. Thereafter, he drove the vehicle on its journey from Mysore commencing at 7 p. m. on the said date and reached Bellary at 7 a. m. on the next day, that is 19-1-2001. After reaching Bellary and passengers had alighted from the bus, the deceased complained of acute pain in the chest and immediately, he was removed to the hospital. He was declared dead due to heart attack on arrival at the hospital. It is an admitted fact that the deceased died in the course of his employment with the appellant corporation. The deceased died while he was on his duty and when he was in the bus.

( 9 ) THE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document