Shylendar Kumar, J.

1. Theappeal has come up for orders regarding application for condonation of delay in this appeal.

2. There is a small delay of 22 days which was not objected to by Sri Patel D. Karegowda, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7.

3. Accepting the explanation offered in the affidavit accompanying the application, we allow IA No.II of 2006 for condonation of delay.

4. We have taken up the matter for admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

5. An employee who was working as a driver it appears died while he was working as a ‘driver’ sitting in the cabin of the vehicle. The dependents had filed a petition under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Commissioner seeking for compensation due to the death of their breadwinner while working.

6. while the employer blissfully remained absent, the insure company who had given the cover to the employer took up the stand of the claimants being not entitled to claim relief for the reason that the death of their breadwinner was not necessarily due to stress and strain attributable to the nature of the employment, but may be in the normal course.

7. The employee was aged 38 years. The insurance company now has come up with this appeal under section 30 of the Act with the contention that the claimants had not proved that death was due to the stress and strain caused on the employee due to the work pressure while in such employment.

8. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri Srisahila, learned counsel submits that the contention of this nature is supported by the Judgments of the Supreme Court which are as under:

(a) ‘Malikarjuna G Hiremath Vs. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another reported in 2009 ACJ 721.

(b) ‘Rashida Haroon Kupurade Vs. DIV Manager Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. And Others reported in AIR 2010 SC 1006.

(c) ‘Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another reported in 2007 ACJ 1.

9. While any principle for concluding that death has occurred in the course of employment, it may be material to ascertain as to whether the death was in the natural course of events or otherwise and in a given case whether it was not in the course of employment but due to some other reasons also may be possible, the contention is that the claimants had not examined any medical person to make good their case that the employee had died due to the work pressure and not a natural death.

10. While in a given case any possibility may exist, the burden is always upon the person who takes up such defence. In the present case, the fact is that the employee had died while he was actually working, in the sense, he was in the cabin of the vehicle which he otherwise used to drive. We cannot presume that either a dead person had been placed in the cabin or the employee died due to some other extraneous reasons and not necessarily due to the employment.

11. The driving job is undoubtedly a tension filled job, particularly, to copy with present day traffic and other things. There cannot be any presumption that even when a person dies while actually working in the job that his death may not be due to the employment, but may be due to something else. Such presumption is nothing short of a perversity. If the insurance company should have taken up a defence that death was not either in the course of employment or not due to the pressures of the work which the employee was performing, the burden is heavily upon the insurance company who after giving a policy to cover the risk of the employer tries to find out untenable, petty and cantankerous reason to wriggle out of their liability which is not befitting its status as an insurance company which is Nationalised and having regard to the object of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which is a piece of social welfare legislation, such untenable stands only exposes the public sector undertakings in poor light but more importantly results in undu