1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner for Workmens compensation rejecting the claim of the applicant to compensation as the widow of one Kaluji Shivaji who was a weaver in the empoly of the respondent. The evidence shows that Kaluji was wording on the first shift on 6-6-1953 which started at 7-30 a.m. and that he collapsed at about 3-30 p. m. in the weaving department where he was working. He was removed to the hospital, some stimulants were given to him, he became conscious, went home and on that very night at about 12 Oclock he died.

Dr. Vaidya, who has given evidence on behalf of the applicant, gave his expert opinion that if a weaver works about 8 hours in a textile Mill in Ahmedabad in the weaving department in the month of June and collapses unconscious and dies within about 6 hours, it is likely that he must have died of heart failure. He further added that "unconsciousness is a sign of a disease and work is likely to accelerate death of a person suffering from heart disease".

2. Now, the real question that we have to decide is whether there was any evidence on which it could be held that the deceased was suffering from heart disease. Mr. Patel on behalf of the respondent has strenuously argued that there is no evidence on the record at all which would justify such a conclusion and, therefore, the Commissioner was right when he held that the deceased did not die of any injury by accident arising out of his employment.

It is not always easy to have direct evidence with regard to a material issue which has got to be established. In this case there is no evidence of any post mortem examination and, therefore, we are not in a position to say definitely as to what the deceased died of But there are occasions when the Court is compelled to draw inferences which naturally and inevitably arise from such evidence as there is on the record. The mere paucity of evidence should not relieve the Court of its obligation to come to a conclusion on necessary and material issues.

As far as the record stands, we have here a case of a normal healthy worker working eight hours on a hot day in Ahmedabad in the weaving department of a textile mill. He collapses and is taken to the hospital and we have the certificate of the police surgeon which is to the effect that Kaluji was feeling giddy, complained of being unconscious and clinical examination revealed nothing abnormal.

Therefore, this certificate clearly establishes that the giddiness and the collapse of Kaluji was not due to any disease which was capable of being discovered by clinical examination. Then we have the further fact that on that very day this workman dies at about midnight. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that this death was due to any disease which could be diagnosed or which could be disclosed or which could be disclosed on a mere superficial examination.

On these facts can it be said that the inference which Dr. Vaidya has drawn is an inference which cannot naturally and normally arise from what has been established on record? In our opinion it is the most natural inference to draw that when a man suddenly collapses and dies very soon after and the doctor is not in a position to suggest any reason for this sudden collapse and the death ensuing that he was suffering from heart trouble which cannot be dibcovcred on a mere clinical examination.

We see no reason why the Commissioner should not have accepted the evidence of Dr. Vaidya on this point. It is true, as Mr. Patel has pointed out, that Dr. Vaidya did not examine the patient and his evidence was based on probabilities. But an expert is entitled to answer all hypothetical questions put to him. The only safeguard which we must apply is that the hypotheses are correctly put to the expert and on perusing the evidence, of Dr. Vaidya we are satisfied that the hypotheses put to him were correct and established and on that hypotheses the expert came to the conclusion that the workman must have