Koshy, J.

Appellant employer challenges the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation on four grounds. A loading and unloading worker during the course of employment, while carrying a head load, collapsed, fell down and died due to heart attack. According to the appellant, in his written statements, the worker fell down while he was carrying the load due to his carelessness. Tribunal ordered compensation holding that the accident occurred during the course of employment and death is arising out of employment. Mere negligence or even gross negligence does not disentitle a workmen for compensation. As held by the Madras High Court in Sundaresa Mudaliar v. Muthummal (1956 (2) LLJ 52), doctrine of contributory negligence has no place in workmen’s compensation claim. Proviso (b) to Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short ‘the Act’) clearly provides as follows:

“3. Employer’s liability for compensation. – (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:

Provided that the employer shall not be so liable-

(a) xx xx xx

(b) in respect of any injury not resulting in death, (or permanent total disablement) caused by an accident which is directly attributable to-

(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or

(ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workman, or

(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen.”

Only on the specific conditions in proviso (b) to section 3(1) compensation can be denied if injuries are sustained in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. But, even those restrictions in the proviso are not applicable in case of death of a workman and obligation is absolute. In case of death, compensation cannot be denied on the basis of negligence on the part of the workman in a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

2. Next ground is that the workman died due to heart attack and, therefore, it is a natural death and it is not due to an accident arising out of his employment. Accident is not defined in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the word ‘accident’ should be understood in the popular and ordinary sense as denoting ‘an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed’. While emplaning the word ‘accident’ contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act in England, Lord Atkinson had observed as follows in Clover, Clayton & Co. Ltd. V. Hughes (1910 AC 242):

“I think the meaning put upon the word ‘accident’ in Fenton v. Thorley (1903 AC 443), must now be accepted in all cases turning on the construction of the phrase ‘injury by accident’ used in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1906, as its true meaning, namely, ‘an unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed’. It must exclude disease. What is ‘unlooked for’ or ‘unexpected’ must, in every case, exist either in the external influences to which the sufferer is subjected, or in the effect upon him which those influence produce.”

A death due to a natural disease (other than an occupational disease) is not an accident. Death of a workman by disease is not synonymous with accident. It is a natural death and not accident. But, the sudden death from the point of view of workman, who dies unexpectedly during the course of employment, without any disease is an ‘accident’. Self inflicted injuries and suicide are not accidents. Here, the workman fell down with head load, collapsed and died due to heart failure. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Yashodhara Amma (1989 ACJ 1075), a Division Bench of this court considered an identi