1. The award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 1st September 2010 granting compensation of Rs.3,32,580/- is called in question in this appeal.

2. Mr. K. Prakash, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and son of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 died due to heart attack on the night intervening between 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006 while he was sleeping in the bus. The deceased was a driver by profession and he was employed by the appellant - Corporation. He was entrusted to drive the KSRTC bus bearing Registration No.KA 18 F-0103 on Route No.99 on 6.10.2006. PW-2 was the Conductor of the bus. The bus left Arasikere at 8 a.m. on 6.10.2006; the deceased drove the bus to Mysore via Channarayapatna and K.R. Pet; thereafter the bus was driven to Naniangud and back to Mysore; the bus left Mysore at 3,30 p.m. and reached Arasikere at 6.30 p.m. The duty of the driver/deceased was completed after reaching Arasikere. However he was directed by the higher officials of the Corporation to take one more trip from Arasikere-Shimoga-Mysore-Arasikere. Thereafter he drove the bus to Shimoga at 9.15 p.m. The driver as well as PW-2 slept in the bus during the night intervening between 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006 since the deceased was informed by the higher officials to drive back the bus from Shimoga to Mysore at 4 a.m. on 7.10.2006. Unfortunately after reaching Shimoga, while he was sleeping during the night intervening between 6.10.2006 and 7.10.2006, driver of the bus suffered massive heart attack and died in the bus. Same is confirmed by post-mortem report. The respondents being the legal representatives of the deceased workman flied petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (the Act' for short). Considering the entire material on record, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.3,32,580/- with interest at 12% per annum. Award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is called in question in this appeal.

3. The appeal was admitted by raising the following substantial question of law:

"Whether a driver, after the day's duty, dying of a heart attack while sleeping in the bus awaiting his next morning's duty, could be constructed as his death due to an accident while on duty, so as to sustain a claim for relief by his legal representatives under the workman's compensation Act 1972 ?

4. There can be assertion that the dying of a workman sleeping in a bus after completion of his day's duties is a natural death. But actually it may not be so under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The occurrence of accident needs to be seen from the facts and circumstances of the particular case. There cannot be any generalization of accident occurring during the course or out of employment, it is bound to differ from profession to profession, and also depends upon the nature of employment.

5. Sri R.I. D'Sa, learned advocate for the appellants submits that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased driver was put to strain and stress because of the avocation; there is no direct nexus between the work entrusted to him and the death; there is no accident as such suffered by the deceased workman; since no material is available to support the case of the respondents that the accident has occurred out of employment and strain, the Commissioner is not justified in awarding compensation. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHAK'JNTALA CHANDRAKANT SHRESHTI vs. PRABHAKAR MARUTI GARVALI reported in AIR 2007 SC 248 in support of his contention that the respondents are not entitled 10 compensation under the provisions of the Act.

The appeal is opposed by Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned advocate appearing for respondents inter alia contending that the material on record clearly reveals that the workman was suffering from heart ailment and he refused to go on work on that day i.e., on