JUDGMENT 1. This appeal in under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 by the Insurance Company. It is directed against an Award of Rs. 3,68,340/- awarded by Commissioner for Workmen Compensation whereby the Company is directed to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 3,68,340/- together with interest @ 9% on account death of one Ram Sewak. 2. At this stage, there is no dispute that respondents No. 1 to 6 is the widow, children and parent of one Ram Sewak (since dead). It is not disputed that Ram Sewak was a professional truck driver employed by the respondent No. 7; he died of an heart attack while on duty. Deceased was getting Rs. 4,000/- per month as salary plus daily allowance of Rs. 40/-. It is disputed that on 15.5.2005 while on way to Indore from Madras, near Burhanpur deceased complained of suffered chest pain so he was taken to Civil Hospital, Burhanpur but Doctores there referred him to M.Y. Hospital Indore for treatment. At the M.Y. Hospital he was declared dead on arrival. 3. According to claimants, deceased died of accident arising out of and during the course of employment, therefore, the appellant and respondent No. 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation under the provision of the Act. Both appellant and respondent No. 7 contested the claim petition. Learned Commissioner after considering the evidence in the light of pleadings, found that deceased was an employee of the respondent No. 7 and as professional truck driver, he was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- with allowance as claimed. It was further held that deceased died of accident arising out of and during the course of employment and at the time of death he was only 45 years of age. According to provisions of the Act, learned Commissioner worked out and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,68,340/- as compensation. 4. The owner of the vehicle and claimants has accepted the award and they have not preferred any appeal. As stated above only the Insurance Company has come in appeal challenging its liability to pay compensation. 5. The only question urged before us that insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 6. Learned counsel in support of his contention heavily relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. As stated above only the Insurance Company has come in appeal challenging its liability to pay compensation. 5. The only question urged before us that insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 6. Learned counsel in support of his contention heavily relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar maruti Garvali and others 2007 ACJ 1 and Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance And others. 2009 ACJ 721 . 7. Section 3 of the Act makes an employer liable for compensation. It contains 5 sub-sections (1),(2) and (2-a) are substantive provisions and sub-sections 3 to 5 are procedural in nature. Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act makes an employer liable for compensation if the personal injury is caused to the workman by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Exception to this general rule is contained in proviso to sub-sections, with which, we are not concerned in the present case. 8. Now coming to first case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shresti (supra). It was a case where a cleaner was travelling in the truck belonging to respondent therein. During night he developed chest pain so he was taken to Hospital and was declared dead on arrival. Mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under W.C. Act. It was found by the Supreme Court that in that case the Tribunal did not analyse the evidence on record and no finding was recorded that the deceased met with an accident and how it contributed to his death. The evidence of his brother who was driver of the behicle was suppressed in that case. There was no evidence on record to show that employment as cleaner contributed to the death of the deceased, and that it was not established that the death occurred during the course of employment. (See para 17 to 20 of the report). 9. In Malikarjuna Hiremath (supra) deceased was a professional truck driver; he left Sringupps to go Gurugunta Amreshwara Temple along with certain passenger as per directions of the owner. When the vehicle reached Gurugunta, the deceased went to a pond and while takin bath, fell down and drowned. In this back ground the question arose whether death occurred during the course of and within the employment. 10. When the vehicle reached Gurugunta, the deceased went to a pond and while takin bath, fell down and drowned. In this back ground the question arose whether death occurred during the course of and within the employment. 10. Supreme Court answered the question in negative the contention and laid the principles holding that there must be a causal connection between the injury and in case of heart attack, the strain thereof must contribute to or aggravate the injury. The evidence on record should show the probabitlity from the point of veiw of reasonable man that the work contributed to the causing of personal injury. 11. In a recent and latest decision reported in (2013) 3 SCC 409 -Parampal Singh v. National Insurnace company, their Lordship analyzed the entire case law relating to the expression “injury caused by an accident arising in and out of employment” in the context of section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is also a case of professional truck driver who suffered heart-attack while in employment i.e. when driving the truck, like the case in hand, and was imediately taken to hospital but in vain. After reviewing the two judgments supra and the various English authorities it was held as under:- “Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can balidly conclude that there was causal connection to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. we cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms away from Delhi, would have definitly undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver whem undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependent solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a matereial contributory factor if not ths sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an ‘untoward mishap’ can therefore be reasonably described as an ‘accident’ as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer’s trade or business.” 12. Having regard to the evidence placed on record there stands established and proved that the deceased was actually driving the truck and that in the course of such driving activity as he had an heart attack. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conclusion of the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation that the death of the deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the seventh respondent was perfectly justified and this appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000/- if certified. 13. Ordered accordingly.