JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act is at the instance of the insurance company challenging the award of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation dated 6/1/2012 whereby the respondents/claimants have been found entitled to the compensation of Rs. 3,26,140/-alongwith interest. 3. In brief respondents no. 1 & 2 had filed the claim petition with the plea that their father Ravi Patel was employed as driver in dumper No. MP-20-G-6381 by respondent no.3 and for last few days, the work was going on in Mohas Canal in which deceased was working day and night and on 25/3/2002 during course of working, he had suffered from chest pain and was taken to hospital where he had died of heart failure. A compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-was claimed. The respondent no. 3 had not filed any reply therefore, the right to file reply was closed. 4. So far as the appellant is concerned reply was filed by respondents denying the claim. 5. The tribunal after permitting the parties to lead the evidence had found that the deceased was working in the employment of respondent no. 3 and during course of the employment, he has died on account of heart attack and that at the time of accident he was aged 47 years and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Accordingly the Commissioner has calculated compensation of Rs. 3,26,140/-alongwith interest. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that merely because the employee had died on account of heart attack during course of employment the nexus between the employee and death is not established. 7. As against this learned counsel for respondents submits that death had taken place due to stress and strain of the work, therefore, the nexus is duly established. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the Commissioner has duly examined this aspect of the matter and has recorded a clear finding that deceased Ravi Patel was operating dumper day and night and on account of excessive stress, he had suffered from the chest pain and had died on account of heart attack. 9. The record reflects that said finding is duly supported by the evidence on record. 10. 9. The record reflects that said finding is duly supported by the evidence on record. 10. AW-1 Smt. Durga Bai had deposed before the Commissioner that at the time of accident, the deceased was working in Mohas Canal and he was driving the vehicle day and night and did not use to come home. 11. AW-2 Rajendra Patel has also stated that at the time of accident Ravi Patel was working day and night and for this reason due to excessive stress he had suffered chest pain and had died of heart attack. 12. No cogent material has been produced by the appellant to rebut the aforesaid. Hence the finding recorded by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. 13. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Moliya Devi and others reported in 2007 ACJ 1116 wherein on account of stress of the work the driver had suffered pain in his stomach resulting in his death. The Division Bench of this Court has held that death was arising out of and in the course of employment. 14. Similar is the view taken by Andhra Pradesh High court in the matter of Bangaru Koteswaramma and others Vs. G.Srinivasa Rao and others reported in 2013 ACJ 901 . 15. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Jyothi Ademma Vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore Thermal Station and another reported in 2006 ACJ 2165 but that was a case where though the workman had died on account of heart attack but it was not found that death was due to stress or strain of working condition because he was performing the work of only to put switch on and switch off and was having the previous history of chest disease. But no such situation exists in the present case. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid I am of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. 17. The issue which the appellant is raising has already concluded by the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine. C.C. as per rules.