Judgment :- The insurance company is the appellant. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 17.11.2003 made in W.C.No.192 of 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, awarding a sum of Rs.2,45,711/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 on account of the death of one Thiru.Palaniappan, who was working as a driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-F-2944, belonging to the fourth respondent herein. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased workman and the respondents 2 and 3 are his children. 2.1. The respondents 1 to 3 had made a claim petition in W.C.No.192 of 2002 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem under Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking compensation from the fourth respondent herein and the appellant herein, on the ground that the workman died in an accident that has occurred in the course of employment. According to the claimants, while the deceased Palaniappan was working as a Heavy Vehicle Driver under the fourth respondent in his Heavy Goods Vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-28-F-2944, on 4.2.2002, at about 10.00 a.m., at Vallipuram, four kilometres away from the Namakkal Police station, while the above said vehicle was driven by its driver Sengodan, and the deceased was on duty as a co-driver, he received a massive heart attack. Immediately the deceased Palaniappan was taken to Government Hospital, Namakkal by the driver Sengodan and was declared dead by the duty doctor. 2.2. The fourth respondent herein, who was the owner of the vehicle did not file any counter affidavit and hence was set exparte. 2.3. The appellant/insurance company, who was the second respondent in the claim petition, resisted the petition on the ground that the claimants are duty bound to prove that the deceased workman died during and in the course of employment and that the vehicle in which the deceased was working was insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant also disputed the possession of valid driving licence by the deceased workman. 3. The appellant also disputed the possession of valid driving licence by the deceased workman. 3. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, on the basis of the materials on record has found that the workman died on account of the heart attack, which he suffered in the course of his employment as driver in the vehicle belonging to the fourth respondent herein and therefore the claimants/respondents 1 to 3 herein are entitled to compensation. 4. Hence the present appeal by the appellant/insurance company. 5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant raises the following substantial questions of law. i.Whether the death is contacted in the course of and arising out of employment under Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act? ii.Whether the stress or strain of the job undertaken in the course of employment was the reason for development of the decease in connection with the employment according to Section 3 of the W.C.Act? iii.Whether the stress or strain has aggravated the disease and falls undr Sec.3 of the W.C.Act? iv.Whether the disease and the resultant death was connected with the employment? v.Whether the disease is the wear and tear of his employment? vi.Whether the employment contributes to the course of acceleration of death and that the death is due not only to the disease but the disease coupled with employment? 5.2. However, learned counsel for the appellant restricts his arguments only with reference to the question whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem is justified in coming to the conclusion that the driver died of heart attack during the course and arising out of employment, and that the said condition would not fall under the employment injury resulting to death. 6. On a perusal of Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act, we find that the word "accident" employed in Section 3 of the Act must be interpreted as any untoward incident or any unexpected accident taking place during the course of employment. As noted earlier, the Commissioner has recorded a finding that the workman developed severe chest pain while he was discharging his duty and having been informed of the same, the co-driver rushed him to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The said finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem is purely a question of fact. As noted earlier, the Commissioner has recorded a finding that the workman developed severe chest pain while he was discharging his duty and having been informed of the same, the co-driver rushed him to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The said finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem is purely a question of fact. We do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the authority, which calls for any interference by us in this appeal in exercise of our power under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, we will have to proceed on the basis that the workman died on account of heart attack suffered by him in the course of his employment. 7. In the light of our conclusion that the workman had died on account of heart attack suffered by him in the course of employment, the only other question that arises is, whether the heart attack suffered by him can be termed as a personal injury suffered by a workman on account of the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Before we proceed to consider the said question, it is useful to refer to Section 3(1) of the Act, which reads as under: Section 3(1): If personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, his employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with law." From a reading of Section 3(1) of the Act, it would emerge that an employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to a workman if such workman suffers from personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the question is, what should be the attached or given to the words "personal injury caused to a workman by an accident". 8. An identical issue came up before the Division Bench of the Karnata High Court in 'DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH EAST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT CORPORATION -vs- SANGAMMA" and the Division Bench, in the said judgment reported in 2005 A.C.J.455, it was held as follows. 8. An identical issue came up before the Division Bench of the Karnata High Court in 'DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH EAST KARNATAKA TRANSPORT CORPORATION -vs- SANGAMMA" and the Division Bench, in the said judgment reported in 2005 A.C.J.455, it was held as follows. "Therefore, if a workman suffers from a personal injury unexpectedly or suddenly and such personal injury suffered by the workman can be attributed to the work undertaken by the workman or has some connection to the nature of duties discharged by a workman, such an injury suffered can be treated as a result of and in the course of his employment." 9. We are of the considered opinion that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem was wholly justified in awarding compensation to the claimants/respondents 1 to 3. Therefore, the order dated 17.11.2004 made in W.C.No.192 of 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.