JUDGMENT M. Ramachandran, J. 1. Challenging the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam dated 30.3.1992 in W. C. C. No. 23 of 1990 the second respondent insurer has filed this appeal. 2. The first respondent Fathima, being wife and dependant and her children had filed the claim for compensation in view of the death of late Mohammed. He had died on 11.9.1989 while in harness. Mohammed, as driver had on the relevant date took the stage carriage from Chathamattom to Muvattupuzha. The evidence is that on reaching Muvattupuzha, when the passengers were alighting, he complained of chest pain. His colleagues suggested that he may go to the hospital. He agreed, but offered to park the bus appropriately in the bus stand and as the bus was about to reach the stand, he pulled to a side stopped the vehicle and had collapsed on to the steering wheel (see the evidence of AW 2 Thankachan). He was rushed to the hospital and within minutes he had breathed his last. 3. The claim had been preferred in the aforesaid background. The Commissioner framed the appropriate issues. He found that the deceased workman was a workman in a scheduled industry, that the claimants were his dependents, that there was insurance for the vehicle, KBE 8888, and most importantly the accident arose out of and in the course of employment. Compensation as per the index factor was therefore directed to be deposited. 4. The insurer has come up challenging the order in the aforesaid circumstances. The principal contention urged is that the accident arose not in the course of employment. The argument is that the duty was over on the termination of the trip and the cardiac arrest which occurred on the day was outside the duty hours. Therefore, the accident could not have been treated as one which happened in the course of employment. A faint contention was also tabled, that the heart attack could not be considered as an accident which attracted compensation as it was not an employment injury. 5. We are of opinion that the contentions as urged are insufficient for us to interfere in the order. Under S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, an appeal is to be filed only if there is a substantial question of law. 5. We are of opinion that the contentions as urged are insufficient for us to interfere in the order. Under S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, an appeal is to be filed only if there is a substantial question of law. As pointed out above, the contention that whether the accident was outside the hours of duty or within duty hours, can never be projected as a substantial question of law. After going through the evidence, no person would rise to challenge the finding, for the workman while driving the vehicle, even after feeling a discomfort was, with a sense of duty attempting to part the vehicle and the strain arising from the work over powered him while at the steering wheel. 6. Also the circumstances show and in fact the accident viz., the cardiac arrest happened because of the strain of employment. It reached a massive proportion as he unaware of his condition was shouldering an extra strain when he was to be absolutely kept immobile. There is no dearth for authoritative pronouncements to throw light to the position that cardiac arrest is an injury and an accident, as understood by the term entitling the dependents to be compensated. See the decisions reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Yasodhara Amma ( 1989 (1) KLT 753 ) ; Thengackal Estate v. Reethammal ( 1996 (1) KLT 528 ) : and Project Officer, Sounda D. Colliery v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1996 (2) LLJ 955). 7. We are therefore of the view that the order of the Commissioner needs no interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 8. As the amounts awarded and in deposit had been withheld for a considerable period, all concerned should see to it that the dependents receive the compensation with the least possible delay. Parties are to suffer their respective costs.