( 1 ) HEARD learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. ( 2 ) THE appellant insurance company has challenged the order passed by Workman Compensation Commissioner, Valsad in Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 10 of 2000 Exh. 54 dated 8th August 2008. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,63,070/- with 6% interest w. e. f. 9th November 2000 in favour of claimants. It is necessary to note that commissioner had directed both respondents i. e. employer as well as insurance company to pay aforesaid amount to claimants. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Ms. Hina Desai raised contention that concerned employee died on 21st May 2000 being a natural death having cardiac arrest during recess time, therefore, it cannot consider to be an accident occurred during the course of employment. She also raised contention that postmortem report supported defence of insurance company where cause of death is mentioned being a natural death due to cardiac attack. She also raised contention that when employee died, at that occasion, he was not actually working in premises of employer, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to claimant. Before Commissioner, on behalf of insurance company, five decisions as referred at Page 14 have been cited in support of their contention. Except that, no other contention is raised by learned advocate Ms. Desai on behalf of appellant insurance company. ( 4 ) LEARNED advocate Ms. Anushree Kapadia appearing on behalf of respondents claimants submitted that on 21st May 2000, when employee Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel was working in second shift, at that time, at about 8-00 pm to 9-00 pm, he died in accident, because, during recess period, he was taking rest on PVC/frp 6" diameter three pipes, meanwhile, he received electric shock and due to electric shock of 15% to 17% first degree burn found on body of deceased employee. Therefore, according to her submission, it is not a natural death, but, it was an accident occurred during the course of employment when workman was enjoying recess and taking rest on pipe where injury caused due to electric shock and due to that, it was resulted into a death of concerned employee. She also submitted that accident covered even internal injury to body of concerned employee. It is not necessary that there must be an injury of outside part of body. She also submitted that accident covered even internal injury to body of concerned employee. It is not necessary that there must be an injury of outside part of body. According to her submission, even heart attack is also considered to be an injury in body which can be considered to be an accident occurred during the course of employment. Therefore, according to her submission, Commissioner has rightly examined the matter. No evidence was led by insurance company before Commissioner and proved its defence and insurance policy was in existence which covered accidental period. Therefore, Commissioner has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions made by both the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and also perused the order passed by Commissioner. The claimant Madhuben widow of Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel and children of deceased employee have filed claim petition before Commissioner under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. The concerned employee was working under control of respondent No. 1 contractor and he was working in respondent No. 2 ICI India Limited Company as a A. E. T. At the time of accident, his monthly salary was Rs. 2,148/ -. According to case of claimant, Rameshbhai was receiving burns injury on body during recess period from 8-00 pm to 9-00 pm on 21st May 2000. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital without informing police authorities and thereafter, he died due to said accident. Before Commissioner, respondent No. 1 had filed reply Exh. 20 denying averments made in claim petition. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to respondent No. 1, considering medical report, deceased was died due to natural death, but, facts are admitted by respondent No. 1 contractor. According to respondent No. 1, during recess period, employee Rameshbhai was taking rest on PVC/frp 6" diameter pipe line, meanwhile, pipe line having 50 to 53 degree heat and due to that, deceased received burns injuries which have been certified in medical report given by civil hospital. But, contention is that, due to this injury of 15% to 17% first degree burn, person cannot be died. On behalf of respondent No. 2 Exh. 7 reply was filed by Company denying averments made in claim petition, but, pointed out that policy was obtained from United India Insurance Company Limited being Policy No. 118/00/41/01/11/000107/99 dated 24th December 1999 to 23rd December 2000. On behalf of respondent No. 2 Exh. 7 reply was filed by Company denying averments made in claim petition, but, pointed out that policy was obtained from United India Insurance Company Limited being Policy No. 118/00/41/01/11/000107/99 dated 24th December 1999 to 23rd December 2000. During that period, workman died due to that accident. Therefore, whatever liability if occurred, is not upon respondent No. 2 - insurance company. Both respondents contractor and employer submitted that application must have to be dismissed and insurance company had filed reply Exh. 19 denying the averments made in claim petition. The claimant has produced certain documents vide Mark 4/1 to 4/11 which exhibited vide Exh. 38 to 48 referred in Para 5. Exh. 25, Madhuben Rameshbhai Patel was examined. It is necessary to note that widow was not cross-examined by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, meaning thereby that, evidence of widow remained unchallenged by respondent nos. 1 and 2. Only insurance company has cross-examined widow. The claimant had also produced further document vide Exh. 26/1 where caste certificate was produced. Respondent No. 3 means appellant insurance company has produced three documents vide Mark 30/1 to 30/3; (i) letter written by Kaushal Agency to Insurance Company, (ii) copy of insurance policy and (iii) copy of pay register of month of January. After closing purshis filed by claimant, evidence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was closed and no evidence was led by insurance company before Commissioner. No doubt, vide Exh. 37, one witness summons requested by insurance company to Commissioner, but, ultimately, that application for witness summons was not pressed by appellant insurance company. Thereafter, matter was heard by Commissioner as referred in Para 6. No arguments have been made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, but, only written arguments were submitted by insurance company vide Exh. 53 and claimants have filed written arguments vide Exh. 59. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, issues have been framed by Commissioner. The Commissioner has examined evidence on record led by respective parties. The evidence of widow remained unchallenged before Commissioner. Only contention raised before Commissioner by insurance company that concerned employee died due to natural death, not during the course of employment. A legal notice was served by claimant vide Mark 4/1 Exh. 38, but, no reply was given by any of respondent. One application was made to Factory Inspector on 20th June 2000. Only contention raised before Commissioner by insurance company that concerned employee died due to natural death, not during the course of employment. A legal notice was served by claimant vide Mark 4/1 Exh. 38, but, no reply was given by any of respondent. One application was made to Factory Inspector on 20th June 2000. According to case of claimant, concerned employee was working with respondent No. 1 in Company respondent No. 2 and he expired because of receiving electric shock during the course of employment. Therefore, death of employee was occurred during the course of employment being a part of duty. In postmortem report, 15% to 17% burns were found, but, in postmortem report, it was not mentioned that employee died because of receiving electric shock. But, facts remained that on date of accident, deceased Rameshbhai was taking rest during recess period on PVC/frp 6" diameter three pipe lines and after receiving burns injury because of heat given to pipe line upto 50 degree and hot water of such degree passed through the pipe line and due to that, deceased employee received 15% to 17% first degree burn and due to that burn, he received cardiac arrest and died. Therefore, Commissioner has rightly considered the evidence of widow and there was no evidence led by either of party respondent before Commissioner. Respondent No. 1 and 2 not cross-examined the widow, but, respondent No. 3 had cross-examined her. ( 8 ) IT is also necessary to note that incident occurred in premises of respondent No. 2 company while working as employee of respondent No. 1. So, on the date of accident, employee was on duty enjoying recess and taking rest, received burns injury and died. These facts are not in dispute between parties. Merely raising contention by respondent No. 1, 2 and 3, but, in support of their contention, no evidence was led by either party respondent before Commissioner. Respondent No. 2 ICI India Limited Company is having a work of Effluent Treatment Plant and removing waste from dirty water which has to be required process of heat to water through PVC/frp 6" diameter pipe having 50 to 53 degree which resulted into burns injury to deceased employee and due to that, he died, otherwise, there was no cause of death of concerned employee because he was not suffering from heart problem and that is not the case of respondent. Deceased was died due to electric shock and theory, which has been developed by respondent, cannot be believed as there was no evidence was led in support of by any respondent. On behalf of respondent company, certain decisions have been relied which have been rightly dealt with by Commissioner in the impugned order. The facts of said decisions are not similar to the present case. The employee Rameshbhai died because of receiving electric shock and that fact is proved by evidence of widow as well as postmortem note which has been relied by respondent. The question is that person died due to cardiac arrest, but, can it consider to be a natural death ? This question has been examined by Commissioner and there was no explanation given in postmortem note as to why cardiac arrest received by deceased Rameshbhai. But, postmortem report is not suggested reason for cardiac arrest. Therefore, Commissioner has considered that it amounts to an accident because even heart attack is also considered to be an internal injury in body. It is not always necessary that accident is of outside part of body. It is not the case of respondents that employee has made suicide. The Commissioner has also considered one decision of this Court in case of Shakinabivi and others v. G. S. R. T. C. , reported in 1992 Lab. I. C. 365, where, Section 3 has been interpreted by this Court and when ST bus driver died while applying break suddenly due to high blood pressure and he died. The Commissioner has considered Para 15 to 18 (Page 18) which are as under : "15. If the workman dies as natural result of disease from which he was suffering from or while suffering from a particular disease he dies as a result of natural wear and tear, then in that case, no liability could be fixed upon the employer. But if the employment is contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due, not only to the disease but the disease coupled with the employment, then in that case, it can be said that the death arose out of employment and the employer would be liable. 16. Under Sec. 3 of the Act, accident must arise out of and in the course of employment with the employer. 16. Under Sec. 3 of the Act, accident must arise out of and in the course of employment with the employer. The accident in order to give rise to a claim for compensation must have some casual relation to the workman's employment and must be due to a risk incidental to that employment. 17. In the case of death caused by employment injury, the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of employment and in the course of the employment. But this does not mean that the workman who comes to Court for relief must necessarily prove it by direct evidence. It could also be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference. It is, of course, impossible to lay down any strict jacket formula or rule as to the extent and degree of proof in such matter, which is sufficient to justify an inference being drawn. Strict proof as to the cause of death or the result of personal injury in a proceeding under the Act is not as high as in an ordinary civil litigation before the Civil Courts. 18. In a very large country like ours, where large labour population suffers from the vices of illiteracy, poverty and incapability to bring their rightful claims fro adjudication before the Courts of law and to fight out with powerful and strong employers, the role of the Commissioner assumes different and significant dimensions and Commissioner is required to remain vigilant and cautious so as to see that the rightful claim of the victim of employment injuries is not affected or defeated ?" ( 9 ) THE Commissioner has rightly considered aforesaid decision of this Court that driver died because of one girl had come against his bus and all of sudden, he had to apply break and therefore, due to high blood pressure, he died. In the present case, deceased received burns injuries and therefore, he received cardiac arrest which consider to be an accident and it was held that claimants are entitled compensation. The Commissioner has also considered one decision of Apex Court in case of Makinan Makinji and company limited v. Ibrahim Mahmmad Isaq reported in AIR 1970 SC 1906 = 1970 Lab. I. C. 1413. The Commissioner has also considered one decision of Apex Court in case of Makinan Makinji and company limited v. Ibrahim Mahmmad Isaq reported in AIR 1970 SC 1906 = 1970 Lab. I. C. 1413. The relevant observation is quoted as under : "to come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of the employment mean" in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it. "the words" arising out of employment are understood to mean "that during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. " In other words, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligation and its incidents. If by reason of any those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger, the injury would be one which arises "out of employment". To put it differently, if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment. The claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. " ( 10 ) THE Commissioner has also considered one more decision reported in 1992 Lab. I. C. 1182 in case of Hindustan Steel Construction Ltd. v. Nuresha Matun, where, Patna High Court has held that in accident, it is not always require injury on outside part of body, but, it can be considered to be an internal injury like heart attack and therefore, if heart attack received by employee during employment, then, it could consider to be an accident and it cannot be considered to be a natural death under the provisions of Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, in the present case, considering the evidence on record and as per postmortem report also, there was burns injury on body. Therefore, in the present case, considering the evidence on record and as per postmortem report also, there was burns injury on body. As per Serial No. 11 of postmortem report, it has been specifically made clear by Doctor that Rameshbhai was died while working in electric department during recess period due to electric shock having internal injury of cardiac arrest and postmortem report suggests that his entire body was fridge and having burns injury upto 15% - 17% and also having some injuries on head as per Serial No. 19 (3) and Serial No. 20 ('g') and 20 ('t') suggests a condition of body of Rameshbhai. After death narrated in postmortem report suggests that aforesaid congestion mentioned in postmortem report as referred above, it cannot consider to be a natural death, but, he died because of receiving electric shock during recess period and his skin was also damaged due to electric shock. At the time when he died, he was alive and received electric shock and due to that internal injury which considered as cardiac arrest, therefore, employee Rameshbhai died while falling down on pipe which received burns injury on back side. Therefore, it cannot consider to be a natural death, but, accident occurred during the course of employment which also supported complaint filed by respondent No. 1 Mark 4/7. ( 11 ) THIS Court has considered identical case of cardiac arrest in premises of employer in case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation v. Bhavnaben Maganbhai reported in 2009 (1) GLR 597. The relevant Para 11 to 15, 19, 20, 22 to 24 are quoted as under : "11. Commissioner also considered decision of this court in Deviben Dudabhai v. Manager, Liberty Talkies, Porbandar and another reported in 1994 Lab IC 2570 as under: " (A) Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S. 3 Compensation-claim for Death of a workman due to heart attack Sudden manifestation of heart condition from the effect of strain or over exertion at work constitutes an accidental injury within meaning of the Act. Where the deceased workman, a door keeper in theater worked for 15 hrs. Where the deceased workman, a door keeper in theater worked for 15 hrs. a day except for a lunch break of an hour for a long spell of 15 years and died of heart attack and there was pre-existing disease of tuberculosis which was accelerated and aggravated by the strain and extension of the work, which the deceased was doing and had culminated in his health and the evidence on record proved the fact that he was doing work of two persons, it could be said that the failure of heart had a direct nexus with the employment. Therefore, it could be said that the injury sustained by the deceased had arisen out of and in the course of his employment and it was compensable in accordance with the provisions of S. 3. [para 9, 25, 27] (B) Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S. 3 Compensation Claim for, by widow of deceased Death of a workman due to heart attack in course of employment Death need not be in factory or industrial premises. Workmen's Compensation Death of a workman due to heart attack in course of employment Death need not be in factory or industrial premises. It is not mandatory that the death due to injury should result only in the factory or the industrial premises. It is also not necessary that the death should be the result of one accident. The workman may be suffering gradually due to working the employment and if the cumulative effect of slight injuries is death, then also such an injury is compensable. In the instant case personal injury was suffered, it was no less accidental because it occurred on a series of occasion instead of one. Therefore, in such a situation the employer would be liable to pay the compensation; as such an injury was caused to the workman by the accident which arose out of and in the course of an employment. [para 30] (C) Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), Ss. 4,7,8,17, 28 compensation Claim for by widow of deceased Default in payment on part of employer Plea of settlement between employer and heirs of deceased Not supported by an affidavit.- No particulars of alleged settlement stated by employer No reasonable explanation given as to why alleged settlement was not brought to the notice of Court Non compliance with provisions of Ss. 8, 17, 28 Claimants are entitled to an amount of compensation awarded plus Rs. 8400/- by way of 50 per cent penalty with interest at rate of 6%. Workmen's Compensation Claim for, by widow of deceased Default in payment on part of employer Plea of settlement between employment and heirs of deceased. " 12. Thereafter, Commissioner under the WC Act also considered decision of this Court in case o Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Sunderbai Ramji and another reported in 1992 Lab IC 1020 as under:" (A) Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S. 3 - Compensation Entitlement - Accident arising out of and in the course of employment Factors which must be established. In order to succeed in a compensation application under S. 3 of the Act, three following factors must be established. (i) that there must be an injury; (ii) that it should be caused in an accident; and (iii) it should be caused in the course of employment. (B) Workmen's Compensation Act (i of 1923) S. 3 Words "accident and Injury" - Meaning of Heart attack suffered by worker doing labourious work Injury was a nexus with employment Employer liable to pay compensation. Words and Phrases Words "accident and Injury" in Workmen's Compensation Act Meaning of. The expression "accident" has not been defined in the Act. However, Law Lexicon states the word "accident" generally means some unexpected event happening without design even though there may be negligence on the part of the workman. It is used in the popular and ordinary sense and means a mishap or an untoward even not expected or designed. What the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 really intends to convey is what might be expressed as an accidental injury. Accident and injury are distinct. In cases where accident is an event happening extremely to a man but accident may be an event happening internally to a man and in such cases, accidental injury coincides. Such cases could be high lighted, or listed, like failure of heart, hemorrhage of brain etc. , while the workman is doing his normal work. The connection between the injury and the employment may be furnished by strain of work, if the strain had attributed or aggravated or hastened the injury. Such cases could be high lighted, or listed, like failure of heart, hemorrhage of brain etc. , while the workman is doing his normal work. The connection between the injury and the employment may be furnished by strain of work, if the strain had attributed or aggravated or hastened the injury. In any event, if strain of work causes inefficiency, that strain itself would be the cause of death and it would be personal injury suffered by and employee in the course of his employment. (1977) 18 Guj LR 68) and 1989 Lab IC 73 (Guj.) rel. on. (Para 12)In the instant case, the deceased had chest pain in the morning after he put in three hours labourious work. Therefore, he had to take re st. Again he resumed his duty as a disciplined labourer and again he felt chest pain, fainted and became almost unconscious. He was immediately shifted in an ambulance to hospital. This circumstance would undoubtedly permit to safely infer that the death of the deceased was attributable to the accidental employment injury. The strain of work which the deceased had undertaken would attribute and aggravate such a disease or injury and as such employer is liable to pay compensation. (Para 12) (C) Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923) S. 2 (b) - "compensation" under the "act" - Is not a Civil Court Technical rule of CPC and Evidence Act Not binding on him. (Para 10 ). " 13. Commissioner under the WC Act also considered decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Union of India rep. By Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Vijaywada and Others v. S. Mariyamma and Ors. Reported in 2004 III CLR 404 as under:"i. Accident What does it signify ? Deceased workman, undergoing training at a different place, died due to heart attack Commissioner awarded compensation to his widow and sons Award challenged Held Railways provided residential accommodation while on training but no boarding facility No apparent contribution by workman for developing chest pain during night Chest pain cannot be termed as something expected or designed event It was an accident as contemplated under sec. 3 of the WC Act Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 S. 3. II. 3 of the WC Act Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 S. 3. II. Death : Arising out of and during employment Workman deputed to training at a different place Held that in such a case training hours alone cannot be treated as period of work workman has to undergo more stress during course of training Developing of chest pain during night time is unexpected event - cannot be treated as designed ' Workman had not done anything peculiar to work entrusted to him Workman is held to have died due to accident arising out and in the course of his employment Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 Ss. 3,4. III. Compensation Liability to pay interest Relevant date from which payable Held that compensation payable to workman as soon as accident occurred relevant date of claim thus awarding of interest from the date of accident, by the commissioner not unjustified -Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 Ss. 3,4" 14. The Commissioner also considered decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Chandramathi v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation reported in 2004 I CLR 234 as under: "i. Accident- What it signifies ? - Insured workman Purushothaman died of heart attack in the course of his employment ESI Court rejected claim for compensation by his legal heirs / appellants Hence this appeal Held that heart attack was caused due to arduous and strenuous nature of work Accident and subsequent death arose out of employment appellants entitled to compensation Impugned order set aside Employees State Insurance Act 1948 S. 3 (1 ). II. Interpretation Term 'accident' Object behind legislation is to protect weaker section on principles of social justice Liberal construction Basic ingredient of 'accident' would be unexpectedness Employees State Insurance Act,1948 S. 3 (1) " 15. Decision of Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thankappa reported in 2005 III CLR 446 was also considered by learned Commissioner as under:"compensation : Bus conductor died due to drowning when he went for a bath before joining duty commissioner awarded compensation as it was held that death was due to injury caused out of and in the course o employment Award of compensation challenged Held that deceased conductor with his colleague was in the Bus as they were to join duty at 3. 30 AM Before commencing duty in early morning he had to attend the human needs It shall be taken as one arising out of his employment - -Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 Ss. 3. " 19. As per Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in case, if accident is occurred in the course of his employment or arising out of, that has been interpreted by various Courts while applying theory of national extension of employment which covered period from the place of his residence to the place of working where he has to travel by bus or by any other vehicle. If the deceased employee met with his death while he was going to his place of work and death has arisen during the course of employment, then employer is liable for compensation as per decision of Madras High Court in case of T. N. C. S. Corporation Ltd. v. S. Poomalai reported in 1995 (1) LLJ 378 (Mad. ). The meaning of expression "arising out of employment" has been discussed by Orissa High Court and Rajasthan High Court as under : " (i) The expression "arising out of employment" means that there must be casual relationship between the accident and the employment. If the accident has occurred on account of the risk which is an incident of employment, it has to be held that the accident has arisen out of the employment; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanguli Singh, 1995 LLJ HC ORS (298 ). (ii) The words "out of employment" is not limited to mere nature of the employment, but it (arising out of employment) applied to its nature, its conditions and obligations and its incidents. An accident which occurs on account of a risk, which is an incident of employment, then the claim for compensation can succeed provided the workman has not exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act; Executive Engineer 19th Div. R. C. P. , Bikaner v. Heeraram, 1982 (44) FLR 179 Raj. : 1980 Raj. LW 412. " 20. Where the death was accelerated on account of stress and strain of working condition, it is not necessary that there should be a direct connection between cause of death and nature of duties. R. C. P. , Bikaner v. Heeraram, 1982 (44) FLR 179 Raj. : 1980 Raj. LW 412. " 20. Where the death was accelerated on account of stress and strain of working condition, it is not necessary that there should be a direct connection between cause of death and nature of duties. Even if a casual connection between two can be shown then dependents of deceased would be entitled to claim compensation from employer as per decision in case of Divisional Personal Officer, Western Railway v. Ashiya Begum reported in 1994 LLR 11 (Raj. ). Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. 22. In case of Divisional Controller, N. E. K. R. T. C. , Bellary Division, Bellary v. Marembee and Ors. reported in 2004 I CLR 391 (DB) Karnataka High Court, where, driver employed by employer and assigned duty of driver on long distance bus, it must be held that strain and stress of such journey, contributed to and partly responsible for death of workman. The relevant Para 11 to 13 are quoted as under : "11. It is well-established that it is not necessary for the dependents of the deceased workman to prove that the deceased was engaged in some exceptional work of a particular kind which had caused excess strain on the deceased so as to result in his death. If the work in which the workman was engaged was likely to accelerate death, it could be said that there was proximate nexus between the death and employment. The finding of the Commissioner that there was causal connection between death and work of the deceased cannot therefore be dislodged and moreover, there is no contra evidence placed by the appellant-Corporation to counter such as a finding. 12. On the evidence available on record in the present case, it has to be held, without demur, that the deceased workman had died of heart attach, there being a pre-existing heart condition which was aggravated by the strain f the work of the deceased which resulted in his death. The fact that the deceased workman's unexplained or apparently natural death had occurred during the course of employment, having established causal connection between the nature of employment and death, the employment was attributable cause accelerate the death. The fact that the deceased workman's unexplained or apparently natural death had occurred during the course of employment, having established causal connection between the nature of employment and death, the employment was attributable cause accelerate the death. That the death of the workman was not only due to the disease from which he was suffering but on account of factors coupled with employment, has led the Commissioner to conclude that the death occurred as a consequence of and in the course of employment. Therefore, both the conditions entitling the applicants to claim compensation under Section 3 of the Act are fully satisfied. The contentions raised by the appellant-Corporation is one without any merit. 13. Under Section 30 of the Act, an appeal will lie only if it raises a substantial question of law and not otherwise. The finding that the deceased was the person who suffered an accidental injury or not, is a pure finding of fact giving rise to no substantial question of law. Therefore, we are of the view, that the question is rightly decided by the Commissioner and no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the question raised in the appeal is wrongly decided by the Commissioner. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission without notice to the respondents. No order as to costs. " 23. The Madras High Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nagaraj and Others reported in 2008-III LLJ 61 (Madras) has held that appreciation of evidence and finding of fact by Commissioner not to be interfered by High Court as no substantial question of law involved. The relevant Para 15, 16, 19 to 22 are quoted as under : "15. As held by the Supreme Court in Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak (supra), at p. 19 of 1970-I-LLJ-16 : "6. Although the onus of proving that the injury by accident arose out of and in the course of employment rests upon the applicant, these essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference. On the one hand, the Commissioner may not surmise, conjecture or guess; on the other hand, he may draw an inference from the proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference. On the one hand, the Commissioner may not surmise, conjecture or guess; on the other hand, he may draw an inference from the proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference. It is of course impossible to lay down any rule as to the degree of proof which is sufficient to justify an inference being drawn, but the evidence must be such as would induce a reasonable man to draw it. " 16. It is also relevant to refer to Division Bench of this Court in Shanmuga Mudalian v. Noorjahan 2003-I-LLJ-776 (Mad ). The question in the Appeal decided by the Division Bench was, whether the death of the workman, driver of a bus, due to heart failure was caused because of the heavy strain of employment. The following observation of the Division Bench at page at p. 777 of LLJ :"4. . . . The connection between the accident and the employment may be established if the strain had contributed to or accelerated or hastened the accident. It may not be possible at all times to produce direct evidence of the connection between the employment and the injury, but if the probabilities are more in favour of the applicant then the Commissioner is justified in inferring that the accident did in fact arose out of and in the course of the employment. " 19. I do not propose to go into the factual details of these cases suffice to note that strain, even normal strain, connected with the employment, was the reason for the death of workman. In the circumstances of the case and nature of work, normal strain contributed to the death. It falls within the purview of "arising out of and in the course of employment" contained in Section 3 of the Act. The provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act should be broadly and liberally construed in order to effectively apply the provisions of the Act. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent claimant has drawn the attention of the Court to the Statement of Objects and Reasons articulated at the time of moving Appeal for Workmen's Compensation Act which ultimately resulted in passing of the Act. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent claimant has drawn the attention of the Court to the Statement of Objects and Reasons articulated at the time of moving Appeal for Workmen's Compensation Act which ultimately resulted in passing of the Act. The objects and reasons of the Act are stated as follows : "the growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible from hardship arising from accident. " 21. The aforesaid extract from the State of Objects and Reasons for passing of the Act clearly indicates that : "the general principles of workmen's compensation command almost universal acceptance, and India is now nearly alone amongst civilized countries in being without legislation embodying these principles. For a number of years the more generous employers have been in the habit of giving compensation voluntarily, but this practice is, by no means, general. The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible, from hardship arising from accidents. " 22. Liberal construction of the provisions should be adopted for the provisions which govern the nature and determination of the injuries for which compensation may be had. There is no reason for taking a narrow view. " 24. The Madras High Court has also considered the same view in another case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. , Bhavani v. A. Saroja and Ors. reported in 2008 III CLR 664. The relevant Para 20 is quoted as under : "20. Bearing in mind the above stated, I am of the considered view that the judicial pronouncements made this subject clear. Even an ordinary strain in given circumstances of the case would be enough to cause the injury or death which is found to be in the course of and out of employment, it has to be held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation. Even an ordinary strain in given circumstances of the case would be enough to cause the injury or death which is found to be in the course of and out of employment, it has to be held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation. The claimant is expected in law to show that the workman suffered injury or death due to strain and stress drawn from the work which in particular circumstance was sufficient to cause injury or death and unlike in a criminal case it is enough to show the preponderance of probabilities which would form a premise that the claimants version is probable. It is not necessary to prove that the injury or death was caused by the stress and strain beyond any doubt but it must be shown and the materials brought before the court shall be, to the satisfaction of the Court. " ( 12 ) THE Commissioner had further considered evidence on record in respect of salary of deceased and relevant factor applied considering the age of deceased and on that basis, Rs. 1,63,070/- has been awarded being a compensation with 6% interest in favour of claimants. The Commissioner has directed all respondents to pay jointly and severally compensation with 6% interest as all respondents are liable. ( 13 ) I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and I have also thoroughly gone through the entire award passed Workman Compensation Commissioner, Valsad. According to my opinion, Commissioner has rightly analysed the evidence which are on record and Commissioner has not committed any error while appreciating evidence on record and Commissioner has rightly also appreciated postmortem note and condition of body after death which suggested that it is not a natural death, it is an accidental death. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai cannot be accepted, hence, same are rejected. The finding of fact given by Commissioner cannot consider to be a baseless or perverse. On the contrary, finding given by Commissioner is based on legal evidence which are on record. No substantial question of law is raised and involved in present appeal. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, according to my opinion, there is no substance in present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. ( 15 ) IT is directed to Workman Compensation Commissioner, Valsad to pay Rs. No substantial question of law is raised and involved in present appeal. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, according to my opinion, there is no substance in present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. ( 15 ) IT is directed to Workman Compensation Commissioner, Valsad to pay Rs. 2,46,000/-, which is deposited in Workman Compensation (Fatal) Case No. 10 of 2000, to Madhuben widow of Rameshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel by account payee cheque after proper verification, without any delay. ( 16 ) TODAY, appeal is dismissed by this Court, no order is required to be passed in civil application. Hence, civil application is disposed of.