Only question of fact has been raised in present appeal.

The opposite parties in W.C. Case No.230 of 1999 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Chennai are the appellants in this appeal. The claimants thereon are the respondents herein.

2. The respondents/claimants have preferred the claim application before the above referred Authority claiming compensation for the death of one Lakshmaiah, husband of the first respondent and father of the other respondents.

3. The short facts of the matter which need to be stated for the purpose of the present appeal is as follows:-

The deceased Lakshmaiah was working as a auto driver under the first appellant herein. He was paid a sum of Rs.100/- as daily wages for the above said work. Usually, he used to drive the auto belonging to the first appellant herein in day time between 7.00 A.M. and 7.00 P.M. and after that, the said auto of the first appellant was used to be driven by another auto driver from 7.00 P.M. to next day morning 7.00 A.M. On 3. 1998, the first appellant has instructed the said Lakshmaiah to drive the auto bearing registration No.TN-01-K-6393 till the next day morning as the other duty driver has informed him that he is not attending the night shift work on that date. As per the instructions of the first appellant herein, the above said Lakshmaiah drove the auto continuously and consequently, he died on the next day morning (i.e.) 3. 1998 due to heart attack during the course of employment at Vysarpadi. The respondents being the legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim application before the Authority referred to above. The first appellant being the owner of the vehicle has been added as the first opposite party and the second appellant being the insurer has been made as the second opposite party in the said claim application.

4. The said claim application has been resisted by the first appellant herein by filing a counter stating that he did not ask the said Lakshmaiah to drive the vehicle. But, the vehicle has been taken by one of his friend who has entrusted the same to the said Lakshmaiah. The other statements made in the claim application have been denied by the first appellant/first opposite party. The second appellant/second opposite party being the insurer has filed a counter stating that since the first opposite party himself is a driver, he did not employ anybody including the deceased to drive the vehicle. The other facts made in the claim application has been disputed by the second appellant herein. However, the Authority as referred to above has held that the accident took place in the course of employment and that the respondents/claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,35,560/-. Challenging the said award, the opposite parties in the said claim application have preferred the present appeal.

5. Mr.N.Manoharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the death of Lakshmaiah was not out of and in the course of employment and hence, no compensation need be payable by the appellants. Further, it has been urged that there is no evidence that the work performed by the deceased workmen was the reason for his chest pain and subsequent heart attack. Further, it has been urged that the deceased was not at all employed by the first appellant to run the auto. Thus, the sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are not entitled to pay any compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that Lakshmaiah died during the course of employment and that the work performed by the Lakshmaiah is the reason for his heart attack. Since the death occurred in the course of employment, the appellants herein are liable to pay the compensation. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Authority has rightly held that the respondents are entitled to compensation and allowed the claim application filed by the respondents he