Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed u/s 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act being aggrieved by the award dt.02.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub Division-1, Belgaum, in W.C.A.SR.No.134/2004, wherein the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs.3,69,269/-to the dependants of Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla who was working as driver in the NWKRTC. 2. The applicants are the mother, wife and children of Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla and they filed claim petition seeking compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, averring that on 02.11.2004 Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla was driving the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA 22 F-989. On the way, since he suffered chest pain, he stopped the bus and he was shifted to the hospital. The said Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla died in the hospital wherein it was found that he suffered heart attack due the chest pain arising out of and in the course of his employment as a driver in the respondent-Corporation and therefore the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased workman are entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The petition was resisted by the respondent-Corporation contending that Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla did not die due to the chest pain arising out of and in the course of employment and that he must have been suffering from heart ailment and therefore the respondent-Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation as the cause of death is not attributable to the course of employment. On behalf of the claimants, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW-1. Ex.P.1 to 5 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, Sri.Balachandra Jogule who was working as Assistant Labour Officer was examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 3. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation after considering the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the material on record held that the claimants have proved that Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla died due to the chest pain arising out of and in the course of employment and that the claimants being the mother, wife and children of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act from the respondents. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation took the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-per month after deducting 50% out of Rs.8,531/-and by applying the relevant factor 156.47, total compensation of Rs.3,69,269/-(which included interest of Rs.56,329/-) was awarded to the claimants. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation took the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-per month after deducting 50% out of Rs.8,531/-and by applying the relevant factor 156.47, total compensation of Rs.3,69,269/-(which included interest of Rs.56,329/-) was awarded to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the said award, the NWKRTC has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the cause of death of Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla was not attributable to discharge of his duties as driver as he suffered heart attack and no material is produced to show the proximity between his employment as a driver and the cause of death. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JYOTHI ADEMMA VS. PLANT ENGINEER, NELLOR AND ANOTHER ( AIR 2006 SC 2830 ) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the employer was not liable for paying compensation in respect of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment like workman the dying as a result of heart attack at the work spot wherein the deceased was suffering from chest disease and was previously being treated for such disease and that too his duty was only to switch on and off as such there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties and the death cannot be said to have been caused by any accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. He has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RASHIDA HAROON KUPURADE VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AND OTHERS ( AIR 2010 SC 1006 ) wherein while considering the question of liability and payment of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Supreme Court has held that in a case where the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and the workman died natural death after 6 months due to heart attack, there was no nexus between death and accident and that the employer was not liable to pay the compensation. Further, he has relied upon the division bench decision of this court in the case of MANAGEMENT OF HAL HELICOPTER DIVISION, BANGALORE VS. FATHIMA MARY L. AND OTHERS ( 2010 (I) LLJ 742 (KANT). 5. Further, he has relied upon the division bench decision of this court in the case of MANAGEMENT OF HAL HELICOPTER DIVISION, BANGALORE VS. FATHIMA MARY L. AND OTHERS ( 2010 (I) LLJ 742 (KANT). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not helpful to him in the present case as admittedly, Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla suffered chest pain while he was driving the bus and he stopped the bus and was shifted to the hospital and immediately on the same day, he died due to heart attack and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be paid by the appellant as the death was arising out of and in the course of employment. 6. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. The material on record would clearly show that on 12.09.2003, when Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla was driving the bus bearing No. KA 22/F 989 from Belgaum to Hira and when the bus came near Patna cross after leaving Karce bus stop, Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla sustained a major heart attack while on his duty and he was immediately shifted to Belgaum Civil Hospital for treatment and on the same day, Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla expired. This is also clear from the evidence of PW-1 and the documents produced at Ex.P1 and Ex. P2. It is clear from the evidence of RW-1-Sri. Balachandra Jogule who was working as Assistant Labour Officer that Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla was appointed as a driver and on the date of his death, he was driving the bus from Belgaum to Hira. On his duty, he complained of chest pain and stopped the bus. Thereafter, he was shifted to Belgaum Hospital and he died. In his cross-examination, RW-1 has denied that there was stress on Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla in driving the bus and that he sustained chest pain and heart attack due to stress in the work and he has also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely so as to avoid payment of compensation. In his cross-examination, RW-1 has denied that there was stress on Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla in driving the bus and that he sustained chest pain and heart attack due to stress in the work and he has also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely so as to avoid payment of compensation. It is clear on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and in view of the admitted facts of the case that Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla was driving the vehicle belonging to the respondent and on duty he suffered chest pain and was shifted to the hospital and died on the same day. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not helpful having regard to the above said admitted facts of this case. In Rashida Haroon Kurupade’s case, the death had occurred 6 months after the accident and it was held to be a natural death wherein in the instant case Kutbuddin Gousasab Mulla complained chest pain while driving the bus and was shifted to the hospital and died on the same day. Jyothi Ademma’s case is also not helpful to the appellant as in the said case, the job of the deceased was only to switch on and off and that there was no scope for any stress or strain in his duties. On the other hand, the decision of the division bench of this court in Fathima Mary’s case, on identical facts has held that the death of the workman occurred in the course of employment due to stress and strain of job. Hence, the finding of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation that the death arose out of and in the course of employment has been proved is justified and does not suffer from any illegality and the compensation awarded on the basis of the salary certificate produced by RW-1, the factor adopted and the compensation awarded is also just and reasonable. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and pass the following order: 7. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Costs shall be paid within three weeks from today failing which steps shall be taken for recovery of costs. Imposition of penalty is justified as the amount was not deposited by the employer.