JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order date 20-08-2007 made in Workmen's Compensation No. 102/2007 NF, passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division II, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as 'WCC', for short), fastening the liability to compensate the claimants. 2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, who are the wife, son, father and mother of the deceased Ismail, filed claim petition contending that the deceased Ismail was working as a driver in the bus bearing registration No. KA-16/4883. On 30-12-2002, as per the instructions of the owner of the bus, he picked up the passengers from Sandur to Ramapur and on that night he stayed at Ramapur. On the next morning at about 5.00 a.m., while he was driving the bus, he got heart attack and collapsed on the steering. Immediately, he was shifted to Ramapur Government Hospital and the doctor declared that the deceased had died due to cardiac arrest. Thereafter, a police complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police station. They contended that as on the date of the death of the deceased, he was aged about 36 years, earning salary of Rs. 4,000/-per month and daily batta of Rs. 50/-. They contended that the deceased died due to stress and strain during the course and out of employment and that the family lost its only bread earner, and therefore, the owner as well as the insurer of the vehicle were liable to compensate them. 3. In response to the notice issued by the WCC, the owner and insurer of the vehicle entered appearance. The owner of the vehicle filed his written statement admitting that the deceased was working as a driver in the bus belonging to him and while he was driving the bus he (deceased) died during the course and out of employment. However, he contended that he was paying salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 4. The insurance company filed its written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and disputing the death of the deceased having occurred during the course and out of employment. It contended that there was no relationship of master and servant between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. 3,000/- per month. 4. The insurance company filed its written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and disputing the death of the deceased having occurred during the course and out of employment. It contended that there was no relationship of master and servant between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle. It further contended that the deceased was suffering from diseases due to which he died and hence, the insurer was not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues. The 1st claimant examined herself as RW.1 and examined a witness as RW.2 and got marked the documents as Exs. P.1 to P.6. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined nor any document was marked. 6. The WCC, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration the police report, driving licence, postmortem report issued by the Government Hospital, Ramapur, held that the deceased had died due to cardiac arrest during the course and out of employment and hence, the claimants i.e., wife, son and parents of the deceased, who were dependants of the deceased, were entitled for compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though the claimants claimed that deceased was getting salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month and batta of Rs. 50/- per day, since the owner of the vehicle in his written statement had stated that he was paying a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Further, the WCC taking 50% of the income i.e., Rs. 1,500/- per month and applying the relevant factor 194.64 having regard to the age of the deceased as 36 years as on the date of the accident, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,91,960/- with interest at 12% per annum. Since the deceased had got a valid and effective driving licence and the insurance policy issued in respect of the bus was in force, the liability to compensate the claimants was fastened on the insurance company. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the WCC, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 7. Sri. S. S. Koliwad, advocate appearing for Sri. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the WCC, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 7. Sri. S. S. Koliwad, advocate appearing for Sri. B. C. Seetharama Rao, contended that the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner is contrary to law, that no documents were produced to show that due to the stress and strain, he sustained heart attack and died in the early morning. He contended that the claimants themselves admitted that after staying at Ramapur in the night, on the next day, in the early morning at about 5.00 a.m. while he was proceeding towards Sandur, he developed chest pain and died on wheel itself and as such there is no question of deceased having stress and strain in the early morning. He contended that the deceased had died a natural death for which the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and therefore, sought for setting aside the judgment and order of the WCC. 8. Sri. Y. Lakshmikanth Reddy, advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 supported of the judgment and order passed by the WCC and contended that the deceased was aged about 35 years; he was hale and healthy as on the date of the accident; he stayed overnight at Ramapur and on the next day morning at about 5.00 a.m., while he was proceeding to Sandur, he suddenly collapsed on the steering. He contended that the deceased who was hale and healthy and aged of 35 years, and that heart attack at that age could happen only due to stress and strain in driving the bus. He contended that the WCC after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has awarded the compensation which requires no interference and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award and other relevant records. 10. The records clearly discloses that the deceased Ismail was working as a driver in the bus belonging to the 5 the respondent herein and as per the instructions of the owner of the bus, he proceeded from Sandur to Ramapur and stayed at night in Ramapur and on the next morning at 5.00 a.m., while he was proceeding to Sandur, suddenly he developed chest pain and collapsed on the steering. He was shifted to Ramapur Government Hospital and was declared as dead. A complaint was lodged and the police had registered the case as UDR case. The post-mortem report clearly shows that death was due to myocardiac infraction. Myocardiac infraction is caused due to stress and strain apart from pathological factors like narrowing of blood vessels. The post-mortem report clearly discloses that the death is due to myocardiac arrest. As stated earlier, accident occurred while the deceased was on the steering. Hence, it is clear that the deceased had died during the course and out of employment. Necessary documents were produced before the WCC to show that the deceased was an employee within the meaning of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, I find there is no infirmity or irregularity in the finding of the Commissioner holding that deceased died during the course and out of employment. 11. The contention of the appellant is that the deceased did not die due to any accident arising during the course and out of the employment. The said contention cannot be accepted. In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was working as a driver in the bus belonging to the 5th respondent herein. As per the instructions of the owner of the bus, the deceased proceeded from Sandur to Ramapur, stayed on that night at Ramapur and on the next morning at about 5.00 a.m., while he was proceeding towards Sandur, suddenly he developed chest pain and collapsed on the wheels. As on the date of his death, the deceased was aged 35 years and that is not the age when a healthy person would die. Hence the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another, reported in 2007 ACJ 1 : AIR 2007 SC 248 relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the presence. 12. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the finding recorded by the WCC. Hence, I pass the following order: Appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit before this Court be transferred to the MACT, Ballari, for disbursement.