Judgment : 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-2, Bijapur. 2. The Commissioner has awarded compensation to the wife and children of deceased Dasharath Pawar who died on 27-3-2006 due to heart attack, Deceased Dasharath was employed as a labourer in a crushing plant of the 4th respondent – Mysore Construction Company Limited. While working as such in the project work of Upper Tunga Project crushing plant, he complined of severe chest pain on 27-3-2006. He was rushed to Meggan Hospital, Shimoga, where he died. 3. In support of the claim made, the widow of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and Exs. P-1 to P-4 were produced. The employer of the deceased admitted the factum of employment of the deceased as a labourer in the crushing unit of the plant. He has further admitted that while discharging his duties as a labourer, he complained of chest pain and therefore he was taken to the hospital. Although the appellant-insurance company denied the fact that the death had anything to do with the nature of work the deceased was doing under his employer, except denial no other evidence was let in. 4. The Commissioner, having considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, has recorded a finding that having regard to the nature of work discharged by the workman in the crushing unit, he complained of chest pain and eventually died due to heart attack. To record this finding, he has placed reliance on the evidence of the claimant, the version of the employer and the documents Exs. P-1 to P-4. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the death of an employee occurring due to heart attack cannot be regarded as an accident arising out of and during the course of his employment. He submits that unless there is direct evidence to show that but for the nature of employment he would not have suffered heart attack, the employer cannot be held liable for such a consequence which is normally attributable to congenital problems. He submits that unless there is direct evidence to show that but for the nature of employment he would not have suffered heart attack, the employer cannot be held liable for such a consequence which is normally attributable to congenital problems. Learned Counsel places reliance on a judgment in Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore 2006 ACJ4 2165, to contend that the expression ‘accident’ means an untoward mishap and it cannot include situation where a person who was suffering from chest disease dies due to heart attack though during working hours. 6. Having given careful consideration to the contentions urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I find that in the instant case as per the evidence of the claimant and the version of the employer, it is clear that the employee was working in a crushing unit and he was engaged as a labourer. It is further clear from the evidence on record that he complained of chest pain while he was actually discharging his duties. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that there is casual connection between the nature of work done, the chest pain complained and the eventual death of the workman. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly held that the heart attack suffered by the claimant was due to the pressure of hard work that he was doing at the relevant time. The finding of the Commissioner cannot be characterized as illegal or unsupportable from the evidence on record. It cannot also be said that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in a matter like this, so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is no other evidence placed before the Commissioner to show that the deceased was suffering from heart ailment and that it was only a co-incidence that the complained of chest pain during working hours. In the absence of such an evidence placed before the Commissioner, the finding recorded cannot be found fault with. 7. The facts involved in the judgment relied upon the Counsel for the appellant are totally different. In that case, the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease. In addition, the job he was doing was only to switch on or off the machine. 7. The facts involved in the judgment relied upon the Counsel for the appellant are totally different. In that case, the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease. In addition, the job he was doing was only to switch on or off the machine. The doctor had clearly opined that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. In view of these factual findings, the High Court had reversed the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the findings recorded by the High Court did not suffer from any infirmity. 8. In the instant case, the evidence of the widow of the deceased clearly discloses that the deceased was working in a crushing unit and was inhaling dust everyday. She has further stated that the deceased was working with the employer in such condition for several years and due to the nature of work involving inhalation of dust particles, he was often complaining of chest pain. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner holding that due to the nature of work discharged by the deceased, he complained of chest pain during the course of employment and suffered from heart attack resulting in his death, cannot be termed as illegal. 9. In the light of the above, I hold that the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company has no merit. Hence the same in dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, for disbursal in accordance with law to the claimants.