( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923

( 2 ) THE appellants husband Narandas Maganlal was employed in the Weaving Department of the Respondent Mills on the 14/08/1955 he had gone to work in the second shift which was to commence at 3-30 P M. At 3-20 P. M. while he was sitting in the Grey folding department where he had gone to see a friend he got a serious heart attack and was removed from the Mills to the Civil Hospital. He remained as an indoor patient in the Civil Hospital for about a month and a half and was then discharged. He died on 16/03/1956

( 3 ) THE case of the appellant was that her husband died as a result of the injury caused to his heart by the accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The respondents case was that the deceased got an attack at 3-20 P. M. on the 14th of August 1955 before the second shift commenced and while he was sitting in the Grey folding department where he had gone not for the mills work but for his personal work. It was also the case of the respondent that the appellants husband died due to a subsequent heart attack while he Was not in the Mills employment and therefore he cannot be said to have died of an injury which occurred as a result of and in the course of his employment.

( 4 ) THE evidence of the appellant was that although the deceased was discharged from the hospital he was not completely cured; that after he was brought home he as again taken to the hospital where he remained for 8 or 10 days as an indoor patient and was brought home again. He had then gone to Bhayla for a change of air at the house of his maternal uncle where he took medicine from a vaidya. On the 16th of March 1956 when he died he was not under the treatment of any doctor. He was however examined on that day by Dr. Rameshchandra of Bhayla who declared him to be dead. Dr. Rameshchandra could have perhaps thrown some light as to the cause of death but he was not examined. The appellant said that her husband had told her that he had fallen on a loom while he was working and that as a result of that fall he had become unconscious. She also asserted that prior to the 14th of August 1955 her husband had never fallen in and had taken no treatment for any disease.

( 5 ) BOTH these statements were false. If her statement that her deceased husband had fallen on the loom while he was working on the 14th of August 1955 were to be correct it would have been easy for her to examine a number of workers who must have been present in the weaving department at that time. The fact that she did not do so shows that no such statement could have been made by her deceased husband. Dr. Gupta of the Civil Hospital treated the deceased from the 14th of August 1955 to the 10th of September 1955. He deposed that the deceased had a previous heart attack. He also deposed that considering the previous attack any exertion on the part of the deceased might precipitate another attack. He also deposed that at the same time even without such exertion the man might get an attack. The attack would occur even if the man were resting. The evidence of the appellant that her husband did not have any disease or illness prior to the 14th of August 1955 was therefore false.

( 6 ) DR. Desai of the Civil Hospital stated in his evidence that on the 14th of August 1955 the appellants husband had a heart attack. It was a case of myocardial infraction. He also deposed that the deceased had a previous heart attack and had a bad heart. Dr. Desai has however stated that he was a patient who could have continued with a bad heart all his life. He has also stated that on the 29th of September 1955 when the appellants husband left the hospital he had survived the attack meaning thereby that he had survived the heart attack which the appellants husband had on the 14th of August 1955. Dr. Desai was of the opinion that a subsequent heart attack is not caused by a previous heart attack and that