JUDGMENT :

P B Bajanthri, J. - Instant appeal is by the appellant-Insurance Company questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2012, passed by the Labour Officer Cum Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Belagavi (for short "the Commissioner") in W.C.No.9 OF 2012.

2. The deceased was driver with 1st respondent which is a proprietor concern, M/s.Venkateshwar Transport, Landagewadi, Taluka-Kavate Mahankal, Maharastra State. The deceased was driving the tanker bearing Registration No.MH-10/AQ-2777 on 04.01.2012. While he was driving the tanker between the stretch of Kavate Mahankal to Jayagadh he was feeling uneasiness. While he was driving the vehicle from Jayagadh to Ratnagiri Road, near Dandisatta due to feeling uneasiness, he parked the tanker on the road side and got admitted in Parker Hospital, Ratnagiri. It seems, the doctor at Parker Hospital advised him to approach Dr. Prabhu Hospital, Kolhapur for the purpose of taking further treatment, for which, he has obliged the advice and proceeded to take treatment in Dr. Prabhu Hospital at Kolhapur, where he died at about 12.10 a.m. on 05.01.2012. A case of accident was registered at Jayagadh Police Station. Arising out of the aforesaid accident, the legal heirs of the deceased-Rajaram Yashawant Mali filed claim petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner proceeded to pass the judgment on 18.09.2012, while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the liability fastened on the Insurance Company is incorrect in view of the factual aspects of the incident.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that, death of the deceased is not when he was driving the vehicle, he had stopped the vehicle and gone for taking treatment in a hospital where he died due to hypertension and chronic blood pressure. Death of the deceased is not arising out of the employment and so also while using the insured vehicle. Therefore, fastening the liability by the Commissioner on the Insurance Company is arbitrary and illegal and so also contrary to Sections 140 and 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires accident claim, that could be only with reference to the user of the vehicle. It is also contended that the stress which was occurred while he was driving, has not been proved so as to extend any compensation. In the Doctor's certificate which is marked as Ex.P-5, it is specified that death is due to the Hypertension intracerebral bleed and the author of the death certificate is not examined so as to ascertain the cause of the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that, no documents have been produced whether deceased had any issue relating to hypertension or not. The Commissioner has not considered each of the contentions raised by the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that, for the purpose of fixing the liability on the Insurance Company two ingredients are required namely course of employment, injury or death occurred out of employment which are not proved in the present case. In support of the appellant's contentions he relied on the unreported judgment Appeal (Civil) No.6201 of 2004 dated 11.07.2006 passed in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and another where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that there was no prove of stress and strain when workmen died. He has cited at another decision Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti and another decided on 10.11.2006, in which it was pointed out that nothing has been brought on record to show that the heart attack was caused while on employment. Even according to the employer at the relevant time he was merely getting down from the vehicle. In the present case also the deceased got down from the Tanker and got treatment in a hospital and thereafter he died, therefore stress and strain has not been proved by producing any material evidence. A