JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. A petrol tanker lorry of the sixth respondent was insured with the appellant. According to the sixth respondent, they own four lorries and there were 5 drivers and 5 cleaners. The lorries of the sixth respondent used to go to the depot of Indian Oil Corporation at Tiruchirappalli for loading of petrol and the same would be unloaded at various destinations. The Branch Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Tiruchirappalli is the seventh respondent in this appeal. 2. One Govindaraj was employed as cleaner in the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-5866 owned by the sixth respondent. On 21.03.2003, while he was working he died due to heart attack on the spot and the same was conveyed to the first respondent herein, who is the wife of the deceased Govindaraj. The message was conveyed at about 10.00 p.m. on 21.03.2003 by the IOC Drivers and Cleaners Association. The wife was informed that he died due to heart attack and the dead body was brought at 4.00 a.m. on 22.03.2003. The respondents 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Govindaraj. The respondents 1 to 5 filed W.C.No.4 of 2004 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul claiming compensation for the death of Thiru. Govindaraj. According to them, he died out of and in the course of employment with the sixth respondent. The lorry was insured with the appellant and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one of the cleaners who is a member of the IOC Drivers and Cleaners Association was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. The sixth respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle took a stand that the deceased was not employed by him as a cleaner. Hence it was incumbent on the part of the claimants to prove that he was employed by the sixth respondent. 4. As far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the Insurance Company took a plea that the deceased was not employed in the lorry that was insured with them and he also did not die out of and in the course of employment. 5. The owner examined himself as R.W.1. and marked no documents. The Branch Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation, Good Shed Road, Tiruchirappalli was examined as R.W.2. 5. The owner examined himself as R.W.1. and marked no documents. The Branch Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation, Good Shed Road, Tiruchirappalli was examined as R.W.2. He produced documents Exs.R1 to R4. One official of the Insurance Company was examined, but no documents were marked. 6. Basing on the evidence of P.W.2 and also basing on Ex.A6 and Ex.R3, the Deputy Commissioner came to the factual conclusion that the deceased was employed by the sixth respondent lorry owner. The Deputy Commissioner also took into account that the lorry owner, though stated that he had 4 lorries and he employed 5 drivers and 5 cleaners, he did not produce the Wage Register and Attendance Register. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner recorded a finding that the deceased was employed by the sixth respondent as a cleaner. As to whether he died out of and in the course of employment also, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that due to his stress in the employment, he developed chest pain. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner issued a direction to the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.2,30,145/- and also Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs.2,32,645/- to the claimants. 7. The appellant has filed this appeal questioning the order dated 24.04.2006 of the Deputy Commissioner in W.C.No.4 of 2004. 8. While admitting the appeal on 19.07.2006, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law: 1) Is not the burden on the part of the claimant to prove that the death was caused to the deceased during the course of employment and due to the accident? 2) Whether Section 3(1) of the W.C. Act will attract for compensation in the absence of an accident? 3) Whether the Tribunal can fix the liability against the Insurance Company especially when the vehicle which was insured with the appellant was not in motion and in such circumstances as to how Section 3(1) of the W.C. Act will attract in the absence of an accident? 4) Mere personal injury without accident is sufficient to attract Section 3(1) of W.C. Act? 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent lorry owner and also the learned counsel for the claimants. 10. Though there are four questions of law framed according to the learned counsel for appellant, only two issues are to be decided. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent lorry owner and also the learned counsel for the claimants. 10. Though there are four questions of law framed according to the learned counsel for appellant, only two issues are to be decided. Those issues are: 1) Whether the deceased was a workman employed by the sixth respondent as a cleaner? 2) Whether the death of the workman was out of and in the course of employment? 11. As far as the first issue is concerned, I am of the view that there is a factual finding that the deceased was a workman employed by the sixth respondent. Ex.A6 is the Inward Pass to the IOC Depot. In the said pass, the name of A.Govindaraj is recorded. Ex.A8 is the Identity Card issued by the Indian Oil Corporation and the same also shows the name of A.Govindaraj. Ex.A9 is the Identity Card issued by IOC Drivers and Cleaners Association. The said Ex.A9 also contains the name of A.Govindaraj. P.W.2-Marimuthu, one of the cleaners, has deposed categorically that the deceased was in employment as a cleaner with the sixth respondent and he died on 21.03.2003 while he was in employment. The evidence of the P.W.2 was considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and he recorded a factual finding. The following passage relevant for the consideration of evidence of P.W.2 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 12. The official of the Indian Oil Corporation, who was examined as R.W.2 also gave evidence that in Ex.R3-Inward Register for entry and exit of vehicles, it was mentioned that the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-5866 entered and also went out of the depot and the driver's name was recorded as Joseph and the cleaner's name was recorded as Raj. 13. The case of the claimants is that the deceased is Govindaraj @ Raj. In Ex.A6, a photograph of the deceased Govindaraj is affixed. P.W.2 stated that the deceased was Govindaraj @ Raj and he worked as a cleaner in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-5866. He also stated that the driver was Joseph at that time. It is relevant that Joseph was not examined before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Joseph is the very crucial witness who was employed under the sixth respondent-owner. P.W.2 stated that the deceased was Govindaraj @ Raj and he worked as a cleaner in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-5866. He also stated that the driver was Joseph at that time. It is relevant that Joseph was not examined before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Joseph is the very crucial witness who was employed under the sixth respondent-owner. The sixth respondent could have examined Joseph to establish that the deceased Govindaraj @ Raj was not a cleaner, but the said Joseph was not examined. Furthermore, the sixth respondent did not choose to produce the documents relating to Wage Register and Attendance Register. The evidence of the owner of the vehicle was considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the same is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 14. The learned counsel for the claimants relied on the decision of this Court in The Managing Director, Highland Parade Resort v. Subbulakshmi, reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 227 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 409 , in support of his contention. 15. To establish the employment of the deceased, P.W.2 was examined. He was also employed like the deceased and his identity cards were marked as Exs.A8, A9, A10 and A11. Ex.A6 itself contains three entry passes. Therefore, based on the analysis of evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour recorded a categorical finding that the deceased was a cleaner employed by the sixth respondent. The relevant passage in the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 16. In my view, there is no substantial question of law involved as it is purely a question of fact as to whether the deceased was a cleaner under the sixth respondent -owner. 17. The next question is as to whether the death of the deceased was out of and in the course of employment. The case revolves around as to whether he was a workman under the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent owner took a plea that the deceased was not employed by him. The Association took up the matter and also lodged a complaint to the police. Under these circumstances, he also filed counter and also deposed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the deceased was not in employment. The sixth respondent owner took a plea that the deceased was not employed by him. The Association took up the matter and also lodged a complaint to the police. Under these circumstances, he also filed counter and also deposed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that the deceased was not in employment. The plea of the Insurance Company was that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the deceased was not a workman employed by the sixth respondent. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that he died due to chest pain at the time of employment and out of the stress due to employment. The relevant passage in the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when the employer has disputed the very employment and the driver himself was not examined, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding based on the available evidence. In this case, the first respondent was informed by the Association that her husband died due to heart attack while in employment at about 10.00 p.m. on 21.03.2003. The same was stated in the application before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The first respondent, wife of the deceased, also gave evidence and stated that her husband was employed with the sixth respondent and he died during the employment and she was informed about the death by phone at 10.00 p.m. Taking into account all these factors, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner that he died out of and in the course of employment. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another, reported in 2007 ACJ 1 , stating that the Commissioner should record a finding that it was due to stress and strain of the job, the workman died and hence the order of the Commissioner should be interfered with. I have perused the said judgment. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, I am of the view that the Commissioner recorded the finding that the chest pain was due to the employment and the same led to his death. 20. I have perused the said judgment. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, I am of the view that the Commissioner recorded the finding that the chest pain was due to the employment and the same led to his death. 20. In fact, I am of the view that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants, i.e., the respondents 1 to 5, in The Managing Director, Highland Parade Resort v. Subbulakshmi, reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 227 is on the point and is very near to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case, this Court held in similar circumstances, that the death had occurred out of and in the course of employment. Paragraph-16 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “16. Applying the above dictum to the facts of the present case, this Court has no difficulty and hesitation in agreeing with the finding rendered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that here is the case wherein the employee died of in the course of and out of the employment and the Respondent is liable to pay compensation and the finding warrants no interference from this Court and the first substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the claimants. As heart attack leading to death of the employee is held to be caused due to strenuous nature of work and is hence construed to be employment injury occurred in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The provisions of Sections 3(2) & 3(2)(a) of the Act relating to occupational disease are not applicable to the instant case, the second substantial question of law need not be gone into.” 21. It is also relevant to extract Paragraph-29 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 409 , which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants, as under: “29. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was casual connection to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was casual 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-year-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 km away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when 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 material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his lifespan. 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.” 22. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 23. The fourth and fifth respondents, who were minors at the time of filing the claim petition, would have attained majority by now. Hence, all the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount already deposited by the appellant Insurance Company.