The main legal point established in the judgment is the causal connection between the injury and the accident and the work done in the course of employment, as well as the satisfaction of the three important factors, viz., stress and strain arising during the course of employment, nature of employment, and injury aggravated due to stress and strain.

1. Being aggrieved by the finding rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, holding the management, Pachamalai Estate, Valparai, Tamilnadu, to pay compensation to the wife of a Field Executive, said to have suffered a heart attack and died arising out of and during the course of employment at Pachamalai Estate, the appeal has been filed.

2. According to the respondent/wife, her husband was a Workman employed as a Field Executive in South Division of Pachaimalai Estate. On 19.07.2004, he attended the work in South Division for allocation of works to the workers and then went to the plucking field No.6 at 7.00 a.m. Thereafter, he went to the Manuring field No.8, about 7.40 a.m. In both fields, he had allocated the works to the workers and instructed the supervisors, about the day-to-day performance of the routine work.

3. According to the respondent/claimant, both field Nos.6 and 8 are situated in the highest elevated peak areas and therefore, her husband had to walk to the above said areas. She has further submitted that when he came back to the Estate office between 8.15 to 9.15a.m., to get instructions from the Manager, again, he had returned to field No.6 and 8, to give some specific instructions to the supervisors engaged in plucking and manuring fields. While he was walking upwards to these fields, he had sweating, giddiness and pain and sat on the field. He had also vomited. After a few minutes, he was rushed to Pachamalai Hospital, which is about 2 kms from the work spot. On the way to the hospital, he had vomited and only a nurse was present in Pachamalai Hospital and no medical officer was available. Therefore, he was rushed to Central Medical Hospital to Urlikkal Estate, which is situated about 15 kms from Pachamalai Estate. Due to non availability of an ambulance owned by the Estate, her husband was forced to travel in a car. On the way to Urlikkal from Pachamalai Estate, he became unconscious. Therefore, he was taken to Government Hospital at Valparai, where the Doctor (incharge) informed that her husband was very in a serious condition and advised specialised treatment and thereafter, he was taken to Urlikkal Hospital and on the way, he died.

4. According to the respondent/claimant, the accident arose out of and during the course of employment. It is her further contention that if adequate and timely treatment had been given, her husband could have been saved. It is also her contention that the cause of death was due to stress and strain, arising out of employment and as a Field Officer, the nature of the duties involving supervisory, skilled and manual also contributed to his death. According to the respondent/claimant, at the time of death, the monthly wages of her husband was Rs.7,499.77. He was aged 46 years. Notice of the accident was served on 21.07.2004. She claimed compensation of Rs.3,32,580/-

5. The appellant / Management in their counter affidavit has submitted that under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, only if personal injury is caused to a workman in an accident, arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. It is their further contention that in order to attract the provisions, two conditions must be satisfied. First is there should be an accident involving the deceased or injured and the second is that the accident should be arising out of and in the course of employment.

6. The appellant/management has further submitted that the death of the husband of the respondent/claimant due to acute myocardial infraction was not as a result of any accident, and it was due to normal cause. It is their further contention that the accident also did not happen, out of the employment of the deceased.

7. Further at paragraph No.3 of the counter, the appellant/management has stated as follows:

"Late ManoharRaj Kumar, was employed as a Field Officer in the Pac