K.M. JOSEPH, J. –

1. Appellant is the second opposite party in W.C.C.No.305 of 2003 of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur. Respondents 1 to 6 are the widow, parents and three minor children of the deceased employee. The 7th respondent is the employer.

2. Respondents 1 to 6 laid a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation for the fatal accident caused to the deceased Balakrishnan, alleging that the death occurred during the course of and out of the employment while working in the bus. Late Balakrishnan was a driver under the 7th respondent. According to them, Balakrishnan died on 6.6.2003 due to heart attack which was the direct result of strenuous and continuous work as a driver and the death occurred during the course of and out of the employment while working in the bus.

3. The appellant denied the case that the deceased died due to the direct result of strenuous and continuous work. According to it, it was a natural death and there was no connection with the employment. There are various other contentions raised.

4. Before the Court of the Commissioner, the respondent examined AW1 who is the first respondent and AW2 who is the conductor of the bus in which the deceased worked. Besides Ext.A1 death certificate, Ext.A2 copy of heavy driving licence and badge, Ext.A3 copy of school admission register, Ext.A4 copy of electoral identity card, Ext.A5 newspaper Malayala Manorama dated 7.6.03 and Ext.A8 copy of charge sheet were also produced. The first opposite party who is the employer produced Ext.D1 copy of RC Book, Ext.D2 copy of permit and Ext.D3 copy of clearance certificate. The second opposite party, namely the appellant herein, produce Ext.M1 copy of insurance certificate and Ext.M2 statement of applicant.

5. The Commissioner found that the deceased was an employee. It was further found that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. Reliance was placed on the deposition of AW2 who was the conductor and who has deposed essentially that on 6.6.2003 in the Noon at 12.40 the deceased complained of acute chest pain, and that he was sweating all over the body and by the time he was taking water, he collapsed. He was taken to hospital and the duty doctor pronounced him dead and it was mentioned that he died due to heart attack. On the said basis, compensation of Rs.3,64,455/= was awarded with simple interest at 12 per cent per annum from 6.6.2003 till the date of deposit with funeral expense of Rs.2,500/=.

6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner has acted illegally in not finding that the requirement of Section 3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 is not satisfied. There was no connection between the employment and the death. She relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (2009 (2) ACJ 723). She would submit that the post mortem certificate was not produced.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 would submit that this is a case where the deceased who was the driver met with sudden death owing to heart attack. He would submit that there was no previous history of any cardiac illness and he would submit that it was an accident under Section 3 of the Act, as it was an unexpected mishap. He would also submit that actually the employment in question, namely the employment of a driver does involve stress and strain and it is also pointed out that it was specifically averred before the Commissioner on the said lines. He would draw our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore (2006 (3) KLT 426 (SC)). He would further draw our attention to a Bench decision of this Court in Shah v. Rajankutty (2005 (