S.N. Satyanarayana, J : 1st Respondent in CR-73/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning the Judgment dated 29.02.2012 on the following four grounds:

1. In the first instance, the deceased was not an employee of 1st respondent.

2. Secondly it is contended that since the claimant was working in the premises of 3rd respondent, 3rd respondent would be the employer as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and as such responsible to pay the compensation.

3. That there was no nexus between the death of deceased due to heart attack the nature of employment, and

4. That even assuming for a moment, it is heart attack, which is not properly explained with necessary documents to establish that the death is directly attributable to employment.

2. Heard the Counsel for appellant and as well as contesting respondent Nos.2 and 3 inasmuch as 1st respondent, K.H. Prakash is stated to have died subsequent to filing of appeal and in that behalf a memo is already filed by the Counsel appearing for him. On re-appreciation of grounds of appeal with reference to the finding of the Commissioner in the Judgment impugned and also the Judgment relied upon by the Counsel appearing for appellant, it is seen as under:

3. Admittedly the deceased K.P. Vinayaka is son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. It is not in dispute that he died on 19.09.2006 due to heart attack and at the relevant time, he was in the office premises of respondent No.3 herein, namely M/s. NTTF Industries Limited. The materials on record disclose that the deceased was employed by appellant as mechanic. The appellant had undertaken the work of repairing the grinder installed in the premises of 3rd respondent. Hence, to repair the same deceased was sent to the premises of 3rd respondent to carry out repair of grinding machine. Therefore, the relationship of employee and employer between them cannot be disbelieved, though it is disputed by appellant. The pleadings and other evidence also clearly support the said fact.

4. So far as the second contention is concerned, according to appellant liability to pay compensation could not be saddled on it even though the relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and deceased is accepted. According to appellant, the entire liability to pay compensation should be saddled on the 3rd respondent, since death has taken place in the premises of 3rd respondent, the said respondent should be treated as employer of deceased in the light of definition of Section 2(1)(e) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under:

"employer" includes any body of persons whether incorporated or not and any managing agent of an employer and the legal representative of a deceased employer, and, when the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, means such other person while the workman is working for him."

5. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that the liability of 3rd respondent herein would come into place only in an event, where his services are lent by appellant in favour of 3rd respondent. If that is the situation, then the liability would be on the 3rd respondent also could be seen from the Judgment relied upon by the appellant in the matter of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs. Shahjadi Begum and others reported in [(2006) 11 SCC 692], wherein the services of a driver was requisitioned for election purpose from the appellant bank during the course of his employment under the Election Officer, he died. Therefore the liability to pay the compensation is fixed on Election Commissioner in the said case. In the instant case, his services was not requisitioned by the 3rd respondent, it is infact the deceased was deputed to that place by appellant to do its job for which it had entered into a contract with 3rd respond