Injury suffered to be treated as one in course of employment.

The insurance company is the appellant. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17.11.2003 made in W.C.No.192 of 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, awarding a sum of Rs.2,45,711/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 on account of the death of one Thiru.Palaniappan, who was working as a driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-F-2944, belonging to the fourth respondent herein. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased workman and the respondents 2 and 3 are his children.

2.1. The respondents 1 to 3 had made a claim petition in W.C.No.192 of 2002 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem under Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking compensation from the fourth respondent herein and the appellant herein, on the ground that the workman died in an accident that has occurred in the course of employment. According to the claimants, while the deceased Palaniappan was working as a Heavy Vehicle Driver under the fourth respondent in his Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-28-F-2944, on 4.2.2002, at about 10.00 a.m., at Vallipuram, four kilometres away from the Namakkal Police station, while the above said vehicle was driven by its driver Sengodan, and the deceased was on duty as a co-driver, he received a massive heart attack. Immediately the deceased Palaniappan was taken to Government Hospital, Namakkal by the driver Sengodan and was declared dead by the duty doctor.

2.2. The fourth respondent herein, who was the owner of the vehicle did not file any counter affidavit and hence was set exparte.

2.3. The appellant/insurance company, who was the second respondent in the claim petition, resisted the petition on the ground that the claimants are duty bound to prove that the deceased workman died during and in the course of employment and that the vehicle in which the deceased was working was insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant also disputed the possession of valid driving licence by the deceased workman.

3. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, on the basis of the materials on record has found that the workman died on account of the heart attack, which he suffered in the course of his employment as driver in the vehicle belonging to the fourth respondent herein and therefore the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to compensation.

4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant/insurance company.

5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant raises the following substantial questions of law.

i.Whether the death is contacted in the course of and arising out of employment under Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act?

ii.Whether the stress or strain of the job undertaken in the course of employment was the reason for development of the decease in connection with the employment according to Section 3 of the W.C.Act?

iii.Whether the stress or strain has aggravated the disease and falls undr Sec.3 of the W.C.Act?

iv.Whether the disease and the resultant death was connected with the employment?

v.Whether the disease is the wear and tear of his employment?

vi.Whether the employment contributes to the course of acceleration of death and that the death is due not only to the disease but the disease coupled with employment?

5.2. However, learned counsel for the appellant restricts his arguments only with reference to the question whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem is justified in coming to the conclusion that the driver died of heart attack during the course and arising out of employment, and that the said condition would not fall under the employment injury resulting to death.

6. On a perusal of Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act, we find that the word "accident" employed in Section 3 of the Act must be interpreted as any untoward incident or any unexpected accident taking place during the course of employment. As noted earlier