JUDGMENT Ramanna, J. The appellant/insurer has come up with this appeal challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensatrion, awarding compensation of Rs. 2,91,960/- together with interest at 12% p.a. 2. The case of the respondents 1 to 5 is that the deceased Sheik Nazim was a driver working under Respondent No.6, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-12/T/2955. On 12/8/2001 as usual, the deceased Sheik Nazim who was the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle. During the course of employment, he developed chest pain and severe sweating, therefore he rushed to the Apolo Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was examined at about 3.30 p.m. and he was declared dead at 5.00 p.m. Therefore, respondents 1 to 5 being the wife an children filed the claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bidar. The appellant who is the insurer of the vehicle filed the objection statement and contested the claim petition. After considering the evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation found that the death of late. Sheik Nazim was during the course of his employeent and awarded compensation to the respondents 1 to 5/ claimant and fastened the liability on the appellant to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that death of the driver is not on account of any accident. If there was an accident while on duty, then the appellant may be liable to indemnify the owner. It is further argued that in the instant case, late. Sheik Nazim was a driver who drove the vehicle and immediately went to the hospital on the complaint of chest pain and severe sweating for the last one hour and subsequently, died during the course of treatment, for which the appellatn is not entitled to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Though insurance policy was in force, the appellant is not entitled to indemnify the owner as there was no accident and late. Sheik Nazim has not sustained any injuries on account of the accident. Therefore, under Section 147(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant/insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. It is further argued that respondnets 1 to 5 have not examined the doctor who treted late. Sheik Nazim has not sustained any injuries on account of the accident. Therefore, under Section 147(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant/insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. It is further argued that respondnets 1 to 5 have not examined the doctor who treted late. Sheik Nazim in the Apolo Hospital. Therefore, when the respondents failed to prove that there was any nexus with regard to the death of late. Sheik Nazim and his employment. The order of the Commissioner is incorrect, illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 5. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Compnay relied on a decison reported in case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and Another Vs. Francis De Costa and Another, AIR 1997 SC 432 wherein, it has been held thus: “Employment injury - Compensation - Employee on his way to factory, a place of employment - Met with accident one kilometer away from said place - Injuries sustatined by employee - Cannot be said to be caused by ancient arising out of and in the course of employent.” 6. Therefore, it is argued that in the instant case, the deceased has not sustained injuries and there is no accident caused and sudden death of the deceased was on account of strain and stress. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 7. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that late. Sheik Nazim was a driver under respondent No. 6, who is the owner of the vehicle. According to the evidence of P.W.1, who is the wife of late. Sheik Nazim, the deceased was working as a driver under respondent No.6 on that day, her husband was on duty and he left Gulbarga to Hyderabad with loaded lorry. It is further argued that the discharge summary issued by the Apolo Hospital discloses that the patient came by walking to the emergency unit on 12/8/2001 with the complaint of chest pain and sweating since one hour and made a statement before the doctor that there was no previous history of similar complaint of chest pain. It is further argued that the chest pain devoloped by the deceased was only due to the dirving of the vehicle during the course of his employment. It is further argued that the chest pain devoloped by the deceased was only due to the dirving of the vehicle during the course of his employment. It was further argued that there was no second driver in the said loory and all the way from Gulbarga to the Hyderabad the deceased alone drove the lorry. Therefore, it is argued that the appellant being the insurer of the vehicle is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and the Commissioner has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant. It is further argued that the policy Ex.R.1 issued by the appellant in favour fo trespondent No.6 covers the risk of the driver. Since the death of the driver was during the course of employment, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner. 8. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the respondents relied on a decision reported in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Ujala Debbath and others, (2001) (2) TAC 161 [Gau] wherein, it has been held thus: “Compensation - Accident arising out of and in the course of employment - Deceased working as driver sent on duty and while coming back, stopped vehicle in a town for taking meal - He, after taking meal slept inside cabin of vehicle and in moring complained of chest pain and died - Cause of death relatable to his employment and death having arisen in course of his employment, legal heirs entitled to compensation - Whether award of Commissioner can be sustained in law - Held - (Yes).” Therefore, it is submitted that the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 9. In case of Management of Devon Estate, Nilgiris Vs. Nabeesa and Another, 1991 (2) T.A.C. 38 it has been held by the Madras High Court as under: “Acute chest pain resulting in instantaneous death - Accident took place during the course of employment - Employer’s contention death was not caued due to accideent but due to aggravation of pre-existing turmoils of herart attack - Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation held workman died of an injury arising out of and in the course of employment - Held - Order for Workmen’s Compensation is unassailable, the quantum of compensation is just and reasonable.” 10. He has also relied upon another decision of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad, reported in case of Broach Municipality Vs. Raiben Chimanlal and Others, (1987) ACJ 698 wherein, it has been held thus: “Section 3 - Arising out of and in the course of employment - Employment injury - Driver of tractor -trailer died of hereart failure - Tractor -trailer was used for collectng dirt and filth from different parts of the city - Driver was on duty from 7.00 a.m. and while on duty he suffered from heart attack at 2.00 p.m. -Whether the death can be attributed to employment injury - Held: yes; his work involves stress and strain which would aggtavate the disease; seat of the driver of a tractor remains incessantly trembling and there will be vibrations in the body of the driver which would also aggravate the heart disease.” 11. He has also relied on an unreported decision of this Court in case of M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mahabooba Bi and Others (MFA. 6698/2003) wherein, it has been held that the heart attack suffered by the deceased workman was relatable to his employment. 12. In the instant case, the materials placed on record discloses that the deceased who was the resident of Gulbarga and being a driver of the lorry went to Hyderabad driving the loaded lorry as per the instructins of his employer /respondent No.6, that on 12/8/2001 around 3.30 p.m. P.W. 1/wife of deceased came to know that her husband was admitted to Apolo Hospital. A suggestion put to P.W. I was denied by her that her husband was previously suffering from heart attack. Respondent No.6 owner of the vehicle appeared through Counsel and admitted that the deceased was working as a driver and he was paying salary of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. but he has also taken a contention that no vehicle accident took place and therefore, neither himself nor the insurer are liable to pay the compensation. The contention taken by respondent No. 6 is more helpful to the repondents 1 to 5 than to the appellant. Husband of respondent No. 1 was on duty and he was driving the vehicle cautiously and he is expected to obey the orders ofthe owner to reach a particular place. The contention taken by respondent No. 6 is more helpful to the repondents 1 to 5 than to the appellant. Husband of respondent No. 1 was on duty and he was driving the vehicle cautiously and he is expected to obey the orders ofthe owner to reach a particular place. While he was proceeding towards Hyderabad, he noticed chest pain and sweating and theefore, he rushed to the Apolo Hospital where he was examined in the casuality and he died during treatment, there was no previous history about the heart attack. Theerfore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made by the doctor at Appollo Hospital that on that day when he treated the deceased in the emergency room the deceased complained of chest pain and sweating since morning and on examination, he was in cardiogenic shock and massive auterio lateral mi and he was treated for the same and the patient developed cardiac and was declared dead at 5.00 p.m. Therefore, considering the nature of work carried out by the deceased who was a driver of hearvy vehicle and further as theere is no previous history of chest pain or heart attack, the same be related to his nature of work and out of stress and strain for continuously driving the heavy vehicle, he suffered heart attack. As such, the nexus between the death of the deceased and the nature of work carried out by him has been clearly established. Theefore, the Commissioner was right in holding that the death of deceased arise out of and during the course of his employment under respondent No. 6 and has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer to indemnify the employer/owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the order under challenge does nto require any interference and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensaton, Gulbarga for payment.