JUDGMENT : S. Palanivelu, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the order made in W.C. No. 426 of 2006 dated 22.11.2007 received on 12.12.2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai. The deceased was working as driver in the lorry belonging to the 6th respondent. On 20.10.2005, at about 5.10 p.m. while the deceased was taking the lorry to load the red sand in a Sozhavaram lake belonging to the Government, when he applied steering to take the lorry backward, unexpectedly, it hit on his chest. Immediately he was taken to Stanley Govt. Hospital where he was declared dead. At the time of accident, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 2. In the counter filed by the appellant/insurance company, it is stated that the claim petition is not maintainable in law or on facts, that the death was due to the road accident and the claimants are put to strict proof that the alleged vehicle was involved in the accident, that there is no employer employee relationship between the deceased and the 6th respondent, that the age and income of the deceased are also denied and hence the petition has to be dismissed. 3. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner for Labour, Chennai has, on the basis of the evidence adduced before the same, found that the deceased was employed as driver in the lorry belonging to the 6th respondent and he died due to heart attack sustained out of and in the course of his employment and hence held the respondent liable to pay compensation to the claimants and awarded Rs. 3,57,934/- as compensation. Hence, the appellant/insurance company is before this court by way of this appeal. 4. The appellant/insurance company in his memorandum of grounds raised two substantial questions of law and this appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, has erroneously come to the conclusion that the death was in the course and arising out of the employment? (2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, has erred in allowing the claim when the death is not referable to any stress or strain in the course of employment as per the documents? 5. Heard both sides. 6. (2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, has erred in allowing the claim when the death is not referable to any stress or strain in the course of employment as per the documents? 5. Heard both sides. 6. For the purpose of understanding the claim made under challenge and the objection raised against the same, it is but relevant to refer to Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which specifies the circumstances under which the employer is liable for workmen's compensation. Sections 3(1), 3(2) & 3(2)(a) of the Act reads as follows: Employer's liability for compensation - (1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:..... (2) If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section and, unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment: Provided that if it is proved:- (a) that a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less than the period specified under this sub-section for that employment. 7. 7. The claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. The deceased was aged 41 years at the time of accident. PW-1, the wife of the deceased had deposed that the deceased sustained heart attack due to stress and strain drawn on account of nature and pressure of his work. 8. It is contended on the side of the appellant that the death has occurred only due to heart attack having no connection with the employment and also not due to any injury occurred during the course of employment and hence the claimants are not entitled to any compensation from the employer. The Division Bench of our High Court has also in the judgment reported in P. Kalyani vs. The Divisional Manager, Southern Railway (Personal Branch), (2003) 3 MLJ 314 , has held that the death of the railway employee as due to massive heart attack in the railway platform forming part of his work spot is nothing but an accident arising out of an employment. Similar view is also expressed in the cases decided by the learned Singe Judges of our High Court in the judgment reported in Chief General Manager/Thermal Power Station, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. vs. G. Dhanam and Others, (2007) 1 LLJ 128 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. A. Saroja and Others, (2010) ACJ 1221. Thus in all the cases cited above, the dictum laid down by our High Court is that the death due to heart attack caused by stress and strain drawn due to the nature of work in the particular circumstances is death due to injury by accident in the course of and out of employment. 9. Applying the above dictum to the facts of the present case, this court agrees with the finding rendered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the employee died of in the course of and out of the employment and the 6th respondent is liable to pay compensation and the finding warrants no interference from this Court. As there is no serious dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation fixed by the Commissioner, the award under challenge is to be necessarily confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order made in WC No. 426 of 2006 dated 22.11.2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai. No costs. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order made in WC No. 426 of 2006 dated 22.11.2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. The respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their share amounts alongwith proportionate interest, if any.