JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/2nd opposite party has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.224 of 2009, against the order passed in W.C.No.62 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Coimbatore. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant namely Nagaveni, who is the wife of the (deceased) Duraisamy has filed the claim in W.C.No.62 of 2006, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,36,030/- from the opposite parties for the death of the said Duraisamy in an accident arising out of and while doing his work under the employment of the 1st opposite party. It was submitted that the deceased Duraisamy was employed as a temporary worker in the 1st respondent's firm and employed in plucking (tea leaves) from the 1st respondent's estate. Whileso, on 06.10.2005, when he had done his work and at about 5.30 p.m. when he was returning from the estate, he developed chest pain and fell down unconscious. He was taken to the estate dispensary, wherein the compounder in the dispensary, after examining him, had pronounced him as dead. It was submitted that as the deceased had worked in an inundated area and that he had developed chest pain due to pressure of doing continuous hard manual labour. At the time of his death, the (deceased) was aged 57 years and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.2,120/-. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, who are the employer and insurer. 3. The 1st opposite party in his counter has submitted that the deceased had been employed as a temporary employee in the 1st opposite party's tea plantation and that he was sent to pluck tea leaves from the Tea Plantation-1. It was submitted that the (deceased) Duraisamy had died in his house, after working hours. The averments in the claim that he had sustained heart attack due to the manual labour involved in doing his routine work was not admitted. It was submitted that the (deceased) was aged 52 years at the time of death and that he was paid a daily wage of Rs.77.30/-. It was submitted that as the 1st opposite party had taken a policy of Insurance with the 2nd opposite party to cover the risk of workmen under him, only the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation. 4. It was submitted that as the 1st opposite party had taken a policy of Insurance with the 2nd opposite party to cover the risk of workmen under him, only the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation. 4. The 2nd opposite party in his counter has submitted that the applicant has to prove that the (deceased) was employed as a workman under the 1st opposite party and that he was assigned the job of plucking tea leaves in the 1st opposite party's plantation on 06.10.2005 and also prove that he had died due to hard manual labour done by him on the date of incident, through documentary evidence. The averments in the claim regarding age and income of the deceased and that the applicant was the only legal heir of the deceased was also not admitted. It was submitted that as the deceased had died only after duty hours on the date of incident i.e. 06.10.2005, it was evident that the deceased had not died in an accident arising out of and while doing his work under the employment of the 1st opposite party and as the deceased had died only due to natural causes, the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On the applicant's side, two witnesses were examined and 3 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P3 namely Ex.P1-Copy of death certificate of Duraisamy; Ex.P2-Copy of legal heir certificate; and Ex.P3-Salary slip for the month of October 2005. On the 1st opposite party's side, one witness was examined and no document was marked. 6. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour framed two issues for consideration in the case namely (1) Did the applicant's husband Duraisamy die in an accident on 06.10.2005, arising out of and while doing his work in the course of employment under the 1st opposite party? and (2) What is the quantum of compensation which the applicant is entitled to get? Who is liable to pay compensation? 7. PW1 had adduced evidence that on 06.10.2005, after her husband had carried out his work from 8.00 a.m. in the morning to 5.00 p.m. in the evening and when he was returning home at 5.30 p.m., he had experienced chest pain and fallen down unconscious and that his co-employees had admitted him in the 1st opposite party's dispensary, wherein the compounder, after examining her husband had pronounced him as dead. She deposed that as the tea plantation was situated in a rugged terrain, her husband had to climb up and down the terrain and had to pluck leaves at a high speed due to which he had sustained chest pain and died. She had further deposed that her husband had plucked around 41 Kilograms of tea leaves on the date of accident. 8. PW2, Nagaraj had adduced evidence that on 06.10.2005, when he and the (deceased) Duraisamy had worked from 8.00 a.m. in the morning upto 5.00 p.m. in the evening and at around 5.30 p.m., when they were returning home, the (deceased) Duraisamy had suddenly sustained chest pain and fallen down unconscious. He deposed that with the help of other co-workers had admitted him at the estate dispensary, wherein the compounder at the dispensary had examined him and pronounced him as dead. He deposed that the deceased had sustained chest pain, only due to the strenuous work done by him while plucking tea leaves in a rugged terrain and due to the high speed in which he had done his work. 9. RW1, Perumal had adduced evidence that on the date of accident, the deceased had completed his work at 5.00 p.m. and that upto that time, he had not complained of any chest pain. He deposed that he is not aware of how the deceased had died. 10. The Deputy Commissioner, on opining that the theory of notional extension of employee's premises would take within it the area which a workman possess and repossess in going to and in leaving the actual place of work, held that the deceased had died while doing his work under the employment of the 1st opposite party. The Deputy Commissioner, on observing that the deceased had worked in a rugged terrain and mountainous area while plucking tea leaves and also observing that he had plucked around 41 kilograms of tea leaves in order to get incentive amount for higher output of tea procurement, observed that he had worked at a high speed in order to give maximum output. The Deputy Commissioner on observing that the deceased had completed his work at 5.00 p.m. and on observing that he had sustained heart attack within a close proximity of time at 5.30 p.m., held that the deceased had sustained chest pain due to the stress and strain in carrying out his work under the employment of the 1st opposite party. 11. As no documentary evidence had been filed on the side of the 1st opposite party to rebut the claim of PW1 that her husband was earning Rs.2,120/- per month, the Deputy Commissioner held that the salary of the deceased was Rs.2,120/- per month. The Deputy Commissioner on scrutiny of Ex.P3, observed that the deceased was aged 51 years at the time of his death. The Deputy Commissioner on adopting a multiplier of 149.67, awarded a sum of Rs.1,58,650/- (2,120X50/100X149.67) as compensation to the applicant under the head of loss of income. The Deputy Commissioner on observing that the 1st opposite party had taken a policy of insurance with the 2nd opposite party to extend coverage for its workmen, held the 2nd opposite party liable to pay compensation to the applicant and directed it to pay the said compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its order, failing which, the 2nd opposite party was directed to pay the said amount, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of occurrence of accident till date of payment of compensation. 12. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the 2nd opposite party / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to note that death was caused due to Cardiac arrest, which is a natural cause of death. It was contended that the learned Commissioner failed to note that the job of plucking tea leaves was not a physically fixing and hard job, to cause a strain to the employees. It was contended that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the claimant has not established that the deceased died during the course and out of employment. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 13. It was contended that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the claimant has not established that the deceased died during the course and out of employment. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 13. The very competent counsel for the applicant submits that it was an admitted fact that the deceased Duraisamy was working under the 1st opposite party's tea estate and his employment number was T.No.3303. The same was admitted by the 1st opposite party. Due to hard work done in the hilly area, the deceased employee namely Duraisamy got chest pain and was taken to the estate dispensary, wherein he was declared as dead. The accident had occurred in the course of employment. The employment, age and wage of deceased had not been denied by the 1st opposite party. Besides, the 1st opposite party had taken an insurance for their employees with the 2nd opposite party. Considering all aspects, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had decided all issues on the basis of relevant records namely monthly salary certificate issued by the employer. As such, the impugned order is found to be suitable for execution. 14. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at showing that the (deceased) had died in the course of doing his duty under the 1st opposite party. Further, the employer-employee relationship had also been admitted by the employer. Besides this, it is seen that the 1st opposite party had taken a policy of insurance with the 2nd opposite party for coverage of risk of workmen. Therefore, the appeal does not have enough force to allow it and as such this Court confirms the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 15. It is seen from the Court records that the appellant herein had deposited the entire compensation amount before the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal does not have enough force to allow it and as such this Court confirms the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 15. It is seen from the Court records that the appellant herein had deposited the entire compensation amount before the trial Court. Now, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of W.C.No.62 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order and after identification of the claimant by her counsel, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any. 16. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in W.C.No.62 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, dated 20.10.2008, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.