Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal arises from the impugned order rendered by the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. (for short the “Commissioner”) in Case No.1 of 2005 on 26.2.2007, whereby he allowed the application preferred thereat by the claimants/respondent No.1 to 4 for grant of compensation qua them under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short the “Act”). 2. The Insurance company-appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Commissioner hence concerts to assail it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 3. When the appeal came up for admission on 31.12.2007, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted here before by the appellant against the order of the learned Commissioner, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act had jurisdiction to grant compensation without any evidence that due to cardiac arrest death has occurred because of stress or strain in view of the admitted facts that the deceased, when suffered chest pain, was sitting idle and was not driving the vehicle and in the absence of any allegations in the claim petition to such effects? 2. Whether the award passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation without giving any findings to the effect that the job of the deceased involved any stress or strain and that there was any connection between the cause of death and the job of the deceased so as to fulfill the requirement of the term{ “out of employment”}? Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2. 4. For pronouncing an adjudication upon the afore extracted substantial questions of law, this Court is enjoined to make the relevant un-earthings from the evidence germane qua them. 5. Un-controvertedly, the deceased workman stood engaged as a driver in a vehicle bearing No. HP-01-8136 by its registered owner also at the time contemporaneous to his suffering demise he was evidently rendering his relevant employment in the aforesaid vehicle under its registered owner. Admittedly, the demise of the deceased workman did not occur in any ill-fated mishap involving vehicle bearing No. HP-01-8136 whereon he stood engaged as a driver by its registered owner, rather his demise occurred near taxi union, bus-stand, Dalhousie whereat he felt a severe pain in his heart constraining him to vomit blood whereafter he fainted thereafter on his standing carried to Civil Hospital, Dalhousie, he stood declared dead thereat. 6. 6. The learned Commissioner while pronouncing a rendition upon the apposite claim petition which stood preferred there before by the successors-in-interest of the deceased workman had concluded qua with the demise of the deceased workman evidently sequeling from his, at bus-stand, Dalhousie whereat vehicle bearing No. HP-01-8136, stood parked, whereon the deceased workman stood engaged as its driver by its registered owner, suffering an acute chest pain thereat whereupon a fatal cardiac arrest befall upon him, its hence falling within the ambit of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act, significantly when the aforesaid cause of demise of the deceased workman arose from an accident aforesaid arising out of and in the course of his performing his employment under his employer. In making the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Commissioner imputed a misparlance to the coinage “accident” occurring preceding “arising out of and in the course of his employment” embodied in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Palpably a stained verdict stood engendered from the learned Commissioner imputing to the coinage “accident” a parlance qua its within its ambit holding any un-designed fortuitous event whereupon he presumptively concluded qua the fatal cardiac arrest which befall upon the deceased workman being ascribable to the onerous nature of duties assigned to him by his employer. However, both the aforesaid expostulations propounded by the learned Commissioner emanate from his gross misunderstanding of the parlance borne by the coinage “accident” occurring preceding to the phrase “arising out of and in the course of his performing his employment under his employer” embodied in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act also his presumptively concluding without any unflinching evidence for affording any sustenance to his presumptive conclusive qua the onerous nature of duties assigned by the employer of the deceased workman vis-a-vis latter per se begetting the sequel of his suffering a fatal cardiac arrest, is a purely fallacious conclusion. 7. 7. The parlance borne by the coinage “accident” occurring prior to the phrase “arising out of and in the course of his employment” embodied in subs section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, cannot hold any signification than qua the “accident” on whose occurrence the workman concerned either suffers fatal injuries or injuries which befall upon him permanent or a partial disability, only holding a connotation qua the relevant injuries befalling the workman concerned standing evidently entailed upon him in a mishap erupting on development of a sudden defect either in the machinery or gadgets handled by the workman concerned during the course of his performing his relevant employment under his employer or tritely hereat on a sudden mechanical defect erupting in the vehicle whereon the deceased workman stood engaged as its driver whereupon the apposite vehicle suffered a mishap, in sequel whereof, fatal injuries stood entailed on his person or the relevant vehicle suffering a collision with an evidently offending vehicle in sequel whereto the workman concerned suffered his demise. In other words, the vehicle, whereon the deceased workman stood engaged as its driver by its registered owner, stood by the innate parlance borne by the word/coinage “accident” occurring preceding the phrase “arising out of and in the course of his employment” embodied in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act statutorily enjoined to suffer a mishap arising from its developing a sudden mechanical defect or its suffering a collision with an evidently offending vehicle, in sequel whereof the deceased workman stood entailed with fatal injuries. However, the aforesaid parlance borne by the aforesaid coinage “accident” existing in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act remains evidently un-satiated hereat, significantly, when the vehicle whereon the deceased workman was employed did not suffer the illfate of any accident befalling it nor in sequel whereof the deceased workman suffered his demise, contrarily, he at the bus-stand, Dalhousie suffered a chest pain constraining him to vomit blood, whereafter he suffered a fatal cardiac arrest, whereupon the aforesaid cause of his demise is construable to stand aroused by pure medical reasons or by physiological defects occurring in his anatomy. Even the aforesaid cause of his demise may have fallen within the ambit of the coinage “accident” occurring preceding the phrase “arising out of and in the course of his employment” engrafted in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Act, dehors it standing construed to be a sheer medical cause for his demise, only when forthright evidence emanated in display of the deceased workman while performing onerous exacting duties his standing encumbered with severe stress or strain, strain whereof stood unleashed in his demise occurring at the bus-stand, Dalhousie. However, the aforeaid germane evidence is amiss. Also when PW-1 though stood enjoined to communicate in his deposition qua the deceased workman complaining to him about the strenuousness of the duties asked to be performed by his employer, yet PW-1 omits to make the aforesaid communication for succoring a conclusion therefrom qua the deceased workman remaining under exacting strain ensuing from the rigor of duties performed by him under his employer, wherefrom the apt conclusion ensuing therefrom is qua the owner/employer of the deceased workman not encumbering the latter with acute stress nor thereupon it was tenable for the learned Commissioner to presumptively conclude qua the nature of duties which stood assigned to the deceased workman by his employer being strenuous besides stressful nor it was apt for him to conclude qua the demise of the deceased workman though evidently ascribable to sheer medical reasons its yet holding a nexus with the nature of duties performed by him under his employer nor it was apt for the learned Commissioner to conclude qua there also existing any connectivity inter se the duties performed by the deceased workman vis-a-vis the fatal cardiac arrest which befell upon him. 8. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned Commissioner are not based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned Commissioner has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed. In sequel, the award rendered by the learned Commissioner is quashed and set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.