Judgment :- Koshy, J. A conductor of the bus at the end of his day’s work on 31-10-1993 fell down unconscious due to dizziness. When the driver was about to take the vehicle back to the depot after the passengers were alighted, he saw the conductor in an unconscious stage and he was immediately taken to the PVS Hospital Private Limited, Kozhikode. In the discharge summary issued from the PVS Hospital dated 2-11-1993, it is recorded as follows: “Patient was admitted with C/o. severe dizziness, weakness, abdominal discomfort, syncopal attacks – 2 episodes. On the second day of admission, patient had melaena and haematemesis. No past H/o. similar complaints. Known diabetic – 4 years on oral anti-diabetics. Not an alcoholic.” After two days, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. From 3-11-1993 to 17-11-1993 he was under treatment in the Medical College Hospital and, finally, he succumbed to the injuries. Dependents of the above conductor filed an application for disablement benefit from 31-10-1993 to 17-11-1993 and thereafter for dependent benefits treating that the death was due to an employment injury. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case, Employees’ Insurance Court was of the opinion that his disease might have accelerated due to the strain of the work and, therefore, it is an employment injury. It is submitted that the above findings are perverse and opposed to the evidence adduced in this case. The workman died due to a natural disease which he was having and his work has not accelerated his death. 2. It is not disputed that the driver of the bus found the conductor in an unconscious stage at the end of his work on 31-10-1993 and he was taken to PVS Hospital. Before the bus was parked in the garage, he fell down unconscious in the bus itself and, therefore, the incident was during the course of employment. But, to become an employment injury so as to get dependents benefit, it must be proved that the accident is arising out of employment. In other words, at least, it must have casual connection with the employment or nexus with the employment. Section 46(1)(d) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) speaks about dependents benefit which is as follows: “46. In other words, at least, it must have casual connection with the employment or nexus with the employment. Section 46(1)(d) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) speaks about dependents benefit which is as follows: “46. Benefits:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the insured persons, their dependants or the persons hereinafter mentioned, as the case may be, shall be entitled to the following benefits, namely, xx xx xx xx (d) periodical payments to such dependants of an insured person who dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act, a are entitled to compensation under this Act (hereinafter referred to as dependants’ benefit).” ‘Employment injury’ is defined under section 2(8) of the Act as follows: 2.(8) ‘employment injury’ means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India;” Therefore, in order to claim dependents benefit, one has to prove that (i) the deceased was an insured employees; (ii) claimants are dependants; (iii) the injury occurred during the course of employment; and (iv) the injury should occur due to occupational disease or an accident arising out of employment. In other words, it must have a casual connection with the employment. In other words, it must have a casual connection with the employment. Here, there is no dispute to the first three conditions. Status of the dependents are not disputed. Injury caused during the course of employment and deceased was an insured employee and the whole question is whether it has got any causal connection. Accident report (Ext.D2) sent by the employer reads as follows: “The IP was on duty in Bus No.KKL-11/B-3899. The bus had reached Calicut bus stand and the passengers were alighting at that time the IP felt uneasy and he suddenly vomited blood. He was immediately rushed to the hospital by the bystanders and the driver of our bus.” Ext.P3 is the certificate issued by the Medical College Hospital, Kozihode. Ext.D9 medical certificate shows that he has advanced liver disease and the death was due to advanced liver disease. He was immediately rushed to the hospital by the bystanders and the driver of our bus.” Ext.P3 is the certificate issued by the Medical College Hospital, Kozihode. Ext.D9 medical certificate shows that he has advanced liver disease and the death was due to advanced liver disease. Ext.D10 certificate issued by PVS Hospital shows that his work as a conductor will not aggravate liver disease which he was having. The medical officer has further opined that the stress and strain of work has not caused further worsening of his existing condition of illness and resulted in a stroke. The doctor who attended him at the Medical College Hospital has stated that he was having Cirrhosis of liver, portal hypertension, variceal bleeding, encephalopathy and ascitis. He recorded the cause of death as advanced liver disease. The employer’s letter dated 5-1-1994 shows that he was referred from PVS Hospital and he also confirmed that the death was due to advanced liver disease and not due to the stress and strain of his work. However, the EI Court observed as follows: “12. The medical officer has further opined in Ext.D10 that the state of unconsciousness was caused simply due to the illness that he was suffering. The opinion also is not apparently correct. Admittedly, the deceased was suffering from chronic liver disease. He was attending a strainful and effortive duty of a conductor in a long route bus for the whole day. At the close of the day’s work he was found to be unconscious and he was taken to the hospital in a critical stage. It is idle to find that the state of unconsciousness was merely due to the illness that he was suffering from. On a close scrutiny of Exts.D8, D9, D11 and D12 medical certificates, the opinion given by the medical officer as per Ext.D10 cannot be accepted as true and correct. It is not known on what basis the medical officer concerned has issued Ext.D10 certificate. The materials leading to his conclusions are not set out in the said certificate. Therefore, I have not relied on Ext.D10 certificate. The arguments of the respondent’s counsel based on Ext.D10 certificate are also not accepted by me. 13. From the above discussion, I conclude that the death of the deceased Mohammed Ali was due to employment injury. The materials leading to his conclusions are not set out in the said certificate. Therefore, I have not relied on Ext.D10 certificate. The arguments of the respondent’s counsel based on Ext.D10 certificate are also not accepted by me. 13. From the above discussion, I conclude that the death of the deceased Mohammed Ali was due to employment injury. As a corollary to this, it has to be found that the applicants are eligible for dependents’ benefit.” 3. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the EI Court. It is true that the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 is a social welfare legislation and since it is introducing welfare measures, it should be interpreted liberally in favour of the beneficiaries. But, at the same time, ESI Corporation is not liable to pay compensation for dependents benefit if the death has no connection with the employment. If a person dies due to natural disease, it has no connection with the employment. If a person dies due to natural disease, it has no connection with the employment. Admittedly, he died not due to the occupational disease. 4. The whole question is whether his work has accelerated the disease thereby death was caused. It is now settled law that if the disease was accelerated due to heavy strain of work which resulted in the death, it has got casual connection with the employment. There is also a rebuttable presumption that if an accident occurred during the course of employment it is arising out of employment. Section 51A of the Act reads as follows: “51A. Presumption as to accident arising in course of employment:- For the purposes of this Act, an accident arising in the course of an insured person’s employment shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, also to have arisen out of that employment.” But, that is a rebuttable presumption. To claim compensation for employment injury, casual connection with the employment must be established as held by the Apex Court in Regional Director, ESIC and another v. Francis De Costa and another ((1996) 6 SCC 1). Apex Court in Anand Bihari and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and another ((1999) 1 SCC 731) held that loss of vision to work as a driver is not an employment injury. Apex Court in Anand Bihari and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur and another ((1999) 1 SCC 731) held that loss of vision to work as a driver is not an employment injury. When death occurred due to renal failure, it was held in Gangaben WD/O. Chhaganbhai Havabhai and others v. ESIC (1996) (III) LLJ 901) that it is not an employment injury as by nature of employment, it cannot accelerate kidney disease. In Damyantiben Kantilal Pandya and another v. ESIC (1997 (III) LLJ 286), it was held that death due to cirrhosis of liver has no nexus with employment that in this case ten months before the death, by employment injury, employee’s left hand was fractured. Here, medical evidence is very clear that the accident has no connection with the employment and in the certificates, the doctors very clearly stated that he died due to advanced liver disease and it has no connection with his employment and strain in the work will not cause such death. No medial evidence was adduced by the claimants also. Claimants only examined wife of the deceased to show the dependency of the claimants and PW2 Yusuff, driver of the bus, stated that the conductor felt unconscious during the course of employment. The documentary evidence would clearly show that the death has no connection with the employment. No accident arose during the course of employment and the death due to the advanced liver disease has no connection with the employment. The doctors who treated the deceased very clearly stated that strain of work has not accelerated the disease which caused the death. In this case, only sickness benefits and funeral benefits are payable. No disablement benefit or dependents benefit are payable as there was no employment injury. We cannot award compensation merely due to sympathy to the family of the deceased. In the above circumstances, we set aside the order of the EI Court and hold that claimants are not entitled to get dependents benefits as the deceased died not due to employment injury. Appeal allowed.