JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th May, 2004 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Balasore in W.C. Case No.10 of 2001 directing payment of compen¬sation of Rs.2,29,635/- with a further direction that in the event of failure on the part of the appellant to deposit the award within thirty days, the same will carry simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Satyadev Pandit. Their case before the Commissioner is that the said Satyadev Pandit was working as a driver in the truck belong¬ing to respondent No.8. On 22.1.2001 the deceased drove the truck from the Ichhapur to M/s. Birla Tyres in the district of Balasore fully loaded with rubber. After reaching the gate of Birla Tyres while the deceased was stepping down from the truck, he lost control over himself and fell down. He was immediately shifted to Balasore Headquarters Hospital where he was declared dead. Postmortem was conducted in the District Headquarters Hospital, Balasore. Further claim of the claimants is that the deceased was aged about 37 years and was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month excluding the allowance towards food at the rate of Rs.30/- per day. The respondent No.8 who is the owner of the truck and employer of the deceased filed written statement admitting em¬ployment of the deceased as well as the incident. The present appellant filed a separate written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed four issues. With refer¬ence to the evidence adduced before the Court, the learned Com¬missioner found that the deceased was working as driver under re¬spondent No.8 and had been engaged to drive the truck from Ichha¬pur to Balasore for delivery of rubber at Birla Tyres. The learned Commissioner also found that the death of the deceased occurred in course and out of the employment. Having held that accident occurred in course and out of employment, assessing the salary at Rs.3,000/- per month, the learned Commissioner allowed compensation of Rs.2,29,635/-.

3. Shri G. P. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the award on the ground that the evidence adduced before the learned Commissioner clearly proves that after arrival of the truck near the gate of the Birla Tyres while the deceased was going to attend the call of nature, he suffered from heart stroke and died due to such heart stroke. According to Shri Dutta, there is no connection with the employment and death of the deceased. The deceased having died a natural death unconnect¬ed with the work, no compensation could have been allowed in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents on the other hand submitted that the deceased admittedly was working as a driver under respondent No.8 and he had driven the truck from Ichhapur to Balasore and after driving such a long distance while stepping down from the truck near the gate of Birla Tyres, he suffered heart stroke and died. In view of such nature of evidence, according to the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent it can only be said that the death occurred in course and out of employment and that the death has direct nexus with the nature of employment. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides also cited decisions in support of their submissions.

4. Before analyzing the decisions cited by the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the evidence adduced by the parties before the Commissioner. P.W.1 is the widow of the de¬ceased. In her deposition she has stated that the deceased was working as a driver in the truck belonging to the respondent No.8. Her husband had driven the truck from Ichhapur to Balasore and in font of the Birla Tyres when he was getting down from the vehicle, suddenly fell down and the local people took