JUDGMENT R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Application No. 3 of 2001 under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties in this judgment are described as per their position in the original proceedings. 2. The facts which can be culled out from this case are as under: The applicant's husband-Bharatbhai Popatlal was working in Maneklal Harilal Mills Ltd. at Saraspur, Ahmedabad in Sizing Department as Lorriwala. It reveals that the husband of the applicant was permanent employee of the said Company and was working since 15.3.1965. The husband of the applicant was ESI Member bearing membership registration No. 37/208040. It further reveals that on 10.1.2000 while the applicant of the husband was working in the second shift at about 05:30 p.m. fell down due to push received by Lorry and received severe injuries. It further appears that the Mill Company filled in the form on 10.1.2000 and admitted the husband of the applicant to Bapunagar General Hospital, Ahmedabad (Exh.17). The record reveals that the husband of the applicant was so admitted and treated at Bapunagar General Hospital till 14.1.2000 and expired on 14.1.2000. The applicant received the amount of Provident Fund from the Mill Company as well as Rs. 1,500/- as the after death ceremony expenses. The applicant thereafter filed the present application before the ESI Court which came to be registered as ESI Application No. 3 of 2001. The ESI Court, Ahmedabad vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 was pleased to allow the said application and came to the conclusion that the husband of the applicant sustained an employment injury during the course of his service because of push received from a Lorry at 05:30 p.m. on 10.1.2000 and died because of Intracerebrel hemorrhage on 14.1.2000 and directed the authority to give all benefits to the applicant as well as the legal heirs of the deceased and also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 6.5.2005, the present appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the Act. 3. Heard Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the opponents-appellants and Mr. Mayur Dhotre, learned advocate with Mr. V.M. Dhotre for the applicant-respondent. 1,000/. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 6.5.2005, the present appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the Act. 3. Heard Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the opponents-appellants and Mr. Mayur Dhotre, learned advocate with Mr. V.M. Dhotre for the applicant-respondent. I have also perused the evidence and impugned judgment which is forming part of the paperbook. 4. Mr. Hemant Shah, learned advocate for the opponents-appellants has mainly contended that the lower Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased occurred due to employment injury. It is next contended that considering the death certificate, it appears that the deceased died because of Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, still however the lower Court has come to the conclusion that the deceased died because of the injuries relying upon the other particulars of the death certificate. It is also contended that the lower Court cannot go beyond the expert opinion deceased died Leukemia and therefore, the in this appeal Court. Relying which clearly suggest that the because of Acute Myelogenous not the employment injury and substantial questions as framed arise for consideration of this upon the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Mr. Mayur Dhotre, learned advocate for the applicant-respondent submitted that the injury form was submitted by the Mill Company and the deceased i.e. husband of the applicant came to be admitted to the hospital. It is submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that the deceased had sustained injuries while he was working in the second shift on 10.1.2000 and the death certificate also clearly spells out that the deceased died because of Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest. Mr. Dhotre, further relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Param Pal Singh vs. National Insurance Company, (2013) 3 SCC 409 , submitted that the deceased sustained injuries during the course of his employment and the evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that the deceased sustained injuries and he succumbed to the same while he was in employment and therefore, contended that the lower Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant's husband the deceased sustained employment injuries as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, it is submitted that the appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 6. It may be noted that both the learned advocates have taken this Court through the evidence on record in support of the contentions raised before this Court. 7. On consideration of the contentions raised by both the learned advocates and on appreciation of the evidence on record, it is an admitted position that the deceased applicant's husband was working with M.H. Mills and Industries Unit I, Ahmedabad. It also bornes out from the record that the report of accident in Form 21 as prescribed under the relevant Rules as well as Regulation 68 of the Act was filled in by the competent officer of the Mill Company on 10.1.2000. On perusal of the same, the facts reveal that the date and hour of dangerous occurrence is dated 10.1.2000 at 05:30 p.m. It further reveals that the deceased had started his work on the day of the incident at 03:30 p.m. Column No. 9, 10 of Exh.17 describes the type of injuries which were sustained by the deceased and Column No. 15 clearly spells out the manner in which the incident occurred along with the name of the witnesses who were present when the accident occurred. The further evidence which is on record in form of medical papers were brought on record by the opponents by an application dated 23.12.2003 Exh.22. On scrutiny of the medical papers at Exh.23, it transpires that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 10.1.2000 at 06:45 p.m. and on the same day, the deceased was examined by the Doctor on duty and almost all parameters were checked. The medical papers reveal that the Doctor on duty recommended Xray report of chest and Xray of abdomen of the deceased wherein also it is noted that it is a blunt injury and therefore, the Xray of right scapular region and right lower chest was recommended. It further appears from the medical papers that on 11.1.2000, the further treatment was given to the deceased and certain other clinical tests just as blood sugar, CBC, ESR, Urea, USG, etc. were advised and undertaken. It further appears that on 12.1.2000 during the medical examination, the Doctor on duty recommended that the opinion of physician be taken for assessment. It further appears from the medical papers that on 11.1.2000, the further treatment was given to the deceased and certain other clinical tests just as blood sugar, CBC, ESR, Urea, USG, etc. were advised and undertaken. It further appears that on 12.1.2000 during the medical examination, the Doctor on duty recommended that the opinion of physician be taken for assessment. It further appears that on 13.1.2000, further treatment was given to the deceased by the Doctor on duty. It revealed that the deceased suffered from Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and the matter was referred to the physician at 10:00 a.m. and it appears that at 10:15 a.m. the deceased was advised to be transferred to M.P. Shah Cancer hospital and it is noted that the relatives of the deceased were not available and even the IP Card was also not available. It is again noted at 12:45 p.m. that the patient's relatives are not present and patient's IP Card was also not available and therefore, transfer to M.P. Shah Cancer hospital is not possible. It also bornes out from the record that on 14.1.2000 at 10:25 a.m. the deceased injured was recommended for transfer to M.P. Shah Cancer Hospital. The medical papers further revealed that on 14.1.2000 at about 04:00 p.m. the deceased made a complaint of giddiness and vomiting and the same occurred 3 to 4 times. The Doctor on duty has further noted in the medical papers at 06:00 p.m. that the deceased complained of giddiness. It further appears that right from the evening of 14.1.2000, the condition of the deceased deteriorated and ultimately, at 08:35 p.m. he was declared to have expired. The diagnosis as well as cause of death as noted by the Medical Officer on duty read as under: “Diagnosis Scapular and lower chest blunt injury with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Cause of Death Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest.” 8. It is also noteworthy that the Medical Officer on duty has noted that Dr. H.S. Parmar was informed on telephone. At this stage, it is also noteworthy that the death certificate which was issued by Dr. Mehul Shah at Exh.19 reads as under: “Diagnosis Rt Scapular & lower chest blunt injury & observation Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Cause of Death Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest.” 9. H.S. Parmar was informed on telephone. At this stage, it is also noteworthy that the death certificate which was issued by Dr. Mehul Shah at Exh.19 reads as under: “Diagnosis Rt Scapular & lower chest blunt injury & observation Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Cause of Death Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest.” 9. It is pertinent to note that on 11.2.2000, the Doctor on duty has also issued a certificate for reliving the patient from the hospital at Exh.18. It is mentioned that the deceased expired at 08:35 p.m. and it is further stated as under: “Diagnosis Rt Scapular & lower chest blunt injury & observation Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Situation at the time of leaving from the hospital – Patient expired due to Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest.” 10. It may be noted that the opponents have examined Dr. Hirabhai Samabhai Parmar at Exh.21 who was working as Full Time General Surgeon (Class I) in the ESI Hospital, Bapunagar when the deceased was admitted in the said hospital. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased was admitted to the hospital by the on duty Medical Officer. It is further stated that it is noted by the concerned Doctor on duty in the diagnosis that the deceased had received employment injury on the right shoulder and on the right side of the chest. It is further stated that Xray was taken which did not show any fracture and it showed that no blood had accumulated in the chest. It is further stated that on 12.1.2001, the patient complained about fever and therefore, he was referred to the physician. It is stated that the physician asked for examination of blood. It is further stated that on examination of the blood, it was diagnosed that the deceased suffered from blood cancer and the physician opined that the deceased/patient suffered from Acute Myelogenous Leukemia which was diagnosed as fatal Cancer. It is further stated in his examination-in-chief that on 14.1.2000, the deceased was to be shifted to the Cancer Hospital and even Ambulance was called, however, as the relatives were not present, he could not be transferred. He has further stated that at about 07:30 p.m., the deceased was not properly conscious and was treated by Doctor on duty and at about 08:15 p.m., the patient/deceased became unconscious and died because of brain hemorrhage. He has further stated that at about 07:30 p.m., the deceased was not properly conscious and was treated by Doctor on duty and at about 08:15 p.m., the patient/deceased became unconscious and died because of brain hemorrhage. It is further stated that brain hemorrhage occurred because of Cancer and the patient/deceased did not die because of the employment injury. It is further stated that no injury had occurred on the head. In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that the deceased sustained injury on the chest by a loading rickshaw as stated in the accident form. It is further stated that in his cross-examination that the diagnosis of the deceased was done based upon the pathological and physician report. He has further stated in his cross-examination that there was no fracture. He has also admitted in his cross examination that no treatment of Cancer was available in the hospital and there was no expert of Cancer in the hospital. He has further stated in his cross-examination that the blood Cancer has two stages, one is Acute and the other is Chronic. He has further stated that the effect like flu occurs in cases of Acute Cancer and even vomiting occurs. He has further stated in his cross-examination that once the Acute Cancer is diagnosed, a person cannot work. He has stated in his cross examination that if the body strength is good, a worker can work even in the stage of Acute Cancer. He has further stated in his cross examination that as per the pathological report, total count of the deceased was 100000, whereas in normal individual, the blood counts would be between 5000 to 7000. He has further stated in the cross-examination that in the case papers of the concerned workman, the parameter of white cells is not mentioned. He has further stated in his cross-examination that in a normal individual, the level of Hemoglobin is between 12 to 15 gms., whereas in case of the deceased, the said level was 9.5 gms. He has further stated that even if the level of Hemoglobin is less by 3 to 4 gms, a person can live. He has further stated in his cross-examination that even if the accident would not have occurred, the deceased would have expired at his residence. He has further stated that even if the level of Hemoglobin is less by 3 to 4 gms, a person can live. He has further stated in his cross-examination that even if the accident would not have occurred, the deceased would have expired at his residence. He has further stated that the Cancer was diagnosed on the basis of the pathological and physician report of the hospital. He has denied that the deceased expired because of the accident. He has stated that as the report was received by the hospital late, the deceased could not be shifted to Cancer Hospital on 12.1.2000. He has denied the fact that the patient/deceased was unconscious when admitted. He has further stated that till 06:00 p.m. on the date of death, the deceased was conscious and he started loosing his consciousness since 07:30 p.m. and expired at 08:35 p.m. He has stated that at the time of death, the patient (deceased) suffered epilepsy and brain hemorrhage. 11. The lower Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, framed issues at Exh.8 as under: (i) Whether the application of the applicant is within time? (ii) Whether the application of the applicant is legally maintainable? (iii) Whether the applicant proves that he is entitled to the prayers prayed for in the application and whether the opponents are responsible for the same? (iv) Whether the opponents prove that the applicant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed for and that the opponents are not responsible for the same? (v) What order? 12. After considering the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, the lower Court has come to the conclusion that the applicant's husband expired because of the injury received on 10.1.2000 and died because of brain hemorrhage on 14.1.2000. It has been held that the husband of the applicant died because of the employment injury and has ordered the opponents to give all the benefits of the employment injury within a period of 30 days. Upon consideration of the contentions raised by the opponents in this appeal and upon consideration of the contentions raised by the applicant and on appreciation of the evidence on record, it transpires that the applicant's husband – the deceased was working in the Mill Company and was on his job in the second shift from 03:30 p.m. on 10.1.2000. Upon consideration of the contentions raised by the opponents in this appeal and upon consideration of the contentions raised by the applicant and on appreciation of the evidence on record, it transpires that the applicant's husband – the deceased was working in the Mill Company and was on his job in the second shift from 03:30 p.m. on 10.1.2000. It is also evident from the report of accident Exh.17 that the accident had occurred on 05:30 p.m. on 10.1.2000 and the applicant's husband received injuries as described in the same. It is also evident from the evidence, as discussed hereinabove, that the applicant's husband was admitted to the ESI Hospital at Bapunagar on 10.1.2000 with a medical history of the injuries received. The medical papers at Exh.23, as discussed hereinabove date-wise, also fortifies the fact that the injuries were received. During the course of argument, even Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the opponents appellants herein candidly submitted that the occurrence of the accident is not denied. The medical papers Exh.23 clearly reveal that for the first time on 12.1.2000 i.e. two days after the accident, the deceased complained of giddiness and body ache. It further appears that on 13.1.2000, the deceased was referred to the physician and specially for examination of blood. It is also evident from the medical papers at Exh.23 that the deceased was conscious till 08:00 p.m. on 14.1.2000 and expired at 08:35 p.m. The medical papers Exh.23 clearly exhibits that Dr. H.S. Parmar was not present on 14.1.2000, when the deceased breadth his last. The diagnosis which is mentioned is right scapular in lower chest injury with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and cause of death mentioned as Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest and as noted hereinabove, the Doctor on duty Dr. Mehul Shah informed Dr. Parmar over telephone. The death certificate, which is issued immediately after the applicant's husband expired at Exh.19 by the Doctor on duty Dr. Mehul Shah, only mentions about the cause of death as Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest whereas while issuing the relieving report (Exh.18) on 11.2.2000 i.e. almost after a month of the sad demise of the applicant's husband, the same cause of death is mentioned and only in the diagnosis part, it is mentioned with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. It further appears from the record that Dr. It further appears from the record that Dr. Parmar on 4.3.2000 addressed a communication to the Superintendent of ESI Hospital and has expressed that the deceased was admitted on 10.1.2000 at 06:45 p.m. with injury over right scapular in right side chest. It is further stated that xray report of chest was normal. It is also mentioned that on routine blood investigation Acute Myelogenous Leukemia was found accidentally. It is further stated that there was no relations between injury at right scapular in right side chest injury. Dr. Parmar has further stated that the death was due to Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. It may further be noted that such an opinion was given by Dr. Parmar on 4.3.2000 i.e. more than one and half months after the death of the applicant’s husband. The medical evidence Exh.23 only discloses that it was diagnosed that the applicant’s husband the deceased was suffering from Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. However, no treatment could have been given. Dr. Parmar in his deposition has also admitted that no facility for treatment of Cancer was available in the hospital at Bapunagar and the hospital has no expert for treating Cancer. He has also stated in his deposition that the opinion given by him is based upon the pathological and physician report. It appears from the record that the physician is not examined by the opponents. As discussed hereinabove, for the first time, by the communication dated 4.3.2000 (Exh.6), the cause of death was mentioned as Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. There is no other supportive or corroborative evidence to show that the applicant's husband expired because of Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. It is not denied that the applicant's husband received injury because of overturning of lorry while he was in service in second shift on 10.1.2000. Considering the same, therefore, the deceased sustained injury during the course of the employment and hence, casual connection between the injuries and the accident has clearly established. The accident form at Exh.17 clearly spells out that the accident had occurred while the applicant's husband was in actual employment with M.H. Mills Company and therefore, it is an admitted position that the applicant's husband – the deceased sustained injuries as an employee of the employer. Mr. Dhotre, learned advocate for the applicant respondent has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Parampal Singh (supra), wherein it has been observed thus: “20. Mr. Dhotre, learned advocate for the applicant respondent has relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Parampal Singh (supra), wherein it has been observed thus: “20. As far as the merits of the claim was concerned, the stand of the first respondent in its written statement was that the deceased was not in the employment of the second respondent, that no accident took place in the course of the employment of the deceased with the second respondent, that the deceased was not holding a valid license at the time of alleged accident, that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol or drug at the time of alleged accident and, therefore, no compensation was payable and the first respondent was not liable to pay any compensation. The second respondent also took the stand in his written statement that the deceased was not in his employment and that he was not in his professional visit in the truck bearing No. DLIG8255 to Nimiaghat. It was also stated that one Bhure Singh s/o Dharam Pal Singh was driving the said truck and that in all possibilities the said Bhure Singh might have given lift to the deceased and the deceased might have died due to heavy dose of drug with tea. 23. The entitlement to claim compensation is therefore dependent on fulfillment of the stipulations contained in Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which read as under: “3. Employer’s liability for compensation – (1) If personal injury is caused to an employee 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: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable – (a)(b)……….. (i)(iii)……….. 24. However, there are decisions of the English Court as early as of the year 1903 onwards stating that unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed should be construed as falling within the definition of an accident and in the event of such untoward unexpected event resulted in a personal injury caused to the workman in the course of his employment in connection with the trade and business of his employer, the same would be governed by the provisions of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Such a legal principle evolved from time immemorial got the seal of approval of this Court and for this purpose we can refer to the celebrated decision in Ritta Farnandes (supra). After referring to the decision of House of Lords in Clover Clayton & Co. vs. Hughes, 1910 A.C. 242 this Court referred to the relevant passage in the decision of House of Lords in paragraph 4, which reads as under: “4. Even if a workman dies from a preexisting disease, if the disease is aggravated or accelerated under the circumstances which can be said to be accidental, his death results from injury by accident. This was clearly laid down by the House of Lords in Clover Clayton & Co. vs. Hughes where the deceased, whilest tightening a nut with a spanner, fell back on his hand and died. A post mortem examination showed that there was a large aneurism of the aorta, and that death was caused by a rupture of the aorta. The aneurism was in such an advanced condition that it might have burst while the man was asleep, and very slight exertion or strain would have been sufficient to bring about a rupture. The County Court Judge found that the death was caused by a strain arising out of the ordinary work of the deceased operating upon a condition of body which was such as to render the strain fatal, and held upon the authorities that this was an accident within the meaning of the Act. His decision was upheld both by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords: “No doubt the ordinary accident, said Lord Loreburn, L.C. is associated with something external the bursting of a boiler or an explosion in a mine, for example. But it may be merely from the man’s own miscalculation, such as tripping and falling. Or it may be due both to internal and external conditions, as if a seaman were to faint in the rigging and tumble into the sea. I think it may also be something going wrong within the human frame itself, such as straining of muscle or the breaking of a blood vessel. If that occurred when he was lifting a weight, it would properly be described as an accident. I think it may also be something going wrong within the human frame itself, such as straining of muscle or the breaking of a blood vessel. If that occurred when he was lifting a weight, it would properly be described as an accident. So, I think, rupturing an aneurism when tightening a nut with a spanner may be regarded as an accident.” With regard to Lord Macnanghten’s definition of an accident being an unlooked for mishap or untoward event which is not expected or designed it was said that an event was unexpected if it was not expected by the man who suffered it, even though everyman of commonsense who knew the circumstances would think it certain to happen.” 13. It is not the case of the opponents that the deceased sustained injury because of the fact that he was suffering from Acute Myelogenous Leukemia as it is an admitted position that it was first time diagnosed on 13.1.2000 when the blood reports were received by the hospital. The manner in which the accident has occurred as can be culled out from the evidence clearly establishes the fact that it was an accident during the course of an employment which would fall within the scope and ambit of employment injury as defined under Section 2(8) of the Act. As the evidence reveal, the applicant’s husband – the deceased was never examined by any expert Cancer physician. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, the lower Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant’s husband expired because of the injuries received during his employment on 10.1.2000. Dr. Parmar who has been examined on the basis of the opinion expressed on 11.2.2000, the said opinion cannot be termed as an expert opinion as he himself has admitted in his deposition that there is no expert Cancer physician in the hospital at Bapunagar. 14. It has also come on evidence as noted by the lower Court that in last 3 years i.e. from 1997 till 10.1.2000, the deceased worked continuously for all working days. 14. It has also come on evidence as noted by the lower Court that in last 3 years i.e. from 1997 till 10.1.2000, the deceased worked continuously for all working days. The lower Court has also noted on correct appreciation of evidence that even in past, the deceased had not taken any treatment for Cancer and has not remained absent from work and as noted hereinabove, the Doctor on duty had, at the first instance immediately after the death at 08:35 p.m. has noted that the cause of death was Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, it is held that the deceased sustained an employment injury. It is also held that the injured died because of Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest as per the cause of death mentioned in the medical papers as well as death certificate at Exh.19 and the question raised by the opponents appellants herein that whether Acute Myelogenous Leukemia is an employment injury as per the Act does not require to be answered by this Court in view of the fact that it is an admitted position that the injuries were sustained by the deceased while he was in employment and has expired because of Intracerebrel Hemorrhage leading to Cardio Respiratory Arrest. 16. As far as third question which is raised by the opponents appellants is concerned, Dr. Parmar’s opinion cannot be termed as an expert opinion, as rightly noted by the lower Court. Dr. Parmar, with respect, was a General Surgeon and was not a Cancer Specialist. It is pertinent to note that when the deceased was admitted on 10.1.2000, it has been noted that the patient was admitted with blunt injury right scapular region in lower chest while working in the Mill. It is also noted that the patient was relatively asymptomatic when due to accidental fall from a height of 3.5 to 4 ft. while working on a lorry. It may further be noted that at the time when the deceased expired, the diagnosis made was right scapular and lower chest blunt injury with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and therefore, the lower Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the deceased expired because of brain hemorrhage resulting into respiratory failure. while working on a lorry. It may further be noted that at the time when the deceased expired, the diagnosis made was right scapular and lower chest blunt injury with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia and therefore, the lower Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the deceased expired because of brain hemorrhage resulting into respiratory failure. In addition to this, the opponents-appellants have not led any evidence to show that the deceased died because of Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. 17. In view of the aforesaid, therefore, the lower Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the deceased sustained an employment injury. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.