JUDGMENT : Subodh Abhyankar, J. 1. This appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was admitted on 10.12.2013 without formulating any substantial questions of law and surprisingly the appellant has not framed any substantial question of law in its memorandum of appeal for the purpose of admission of this appeal. The following substantial question of law is framed today only and the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the parties:- "1. Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/ Labour Court, Jabalpur has erred in law in holding that the death of the appellant's husband had occurred in the course of employment ? 2. Whether the award passed by the learned Commissioner suffers from misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record and as such the same is perverse ?" 2. The case of the appellant is that Late Kalloo Sonkar who was working as Master Craftsman in the appellant - Ordnance Factory at Khamaria, Jabalpur had died on 26.03.2009 in Anant Hospital Jabalpur during the treatment. After his death, a case for compensation was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jabalpur and after the evidence was led by the parties before the learned Labour Commissioner, the application was allowed and a sum of Rs. 3,42,432/- with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded to the applicant from 24/03/2009. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned award is perverse which can be demonstrated by the appellant from the record of the case itself. The counsel has submitted that in the application for compensation it is stated by the claimant, that on the date of incident i.e. on 24.3.2009 the deceased received grievous injuries in the course of his employment. It is further submitted that no such accident has taken place in the factory and even after the death of the husband of the claimant the postmortem has not been conducted. The counsel has submitted that the claimant has failed to prove that the death was due to an injury which has been caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. 4. The counsel has submitted that the claimant has failed to prove that the death was due to an injury which has been caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. 4. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation as the impugned award has been passed after duly appreciating the evidence on record hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since both the substantial questions of law are interlinked, they are being decided simultaneously. 6. So far as entitlement of a workman to claim compensation is concerned, it has been succinctly held by the Apex court in the case of Param Pal Singh Through Father v. National Insurance Company and another, [ 2013(2) MPLJ 630 , the relevant paras read as under:- "21. 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)............ (ii)............ (iii)............" 23. In a recent decision of this Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra), the factors to be established to prove that an accident has taken place have been culled out and stated as under in paragraph 28: "28. In a case of this nature to prove that accident has taken place, factors which would have to be established, inter alia, are: 1. stress and strain arising during the course of employment 2. nature of employment 3. injury aggravated due to stress and strain" (emphasis supplied) 7. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the case at hand, this court finds that it is an undisputed fact that on the date of incident i.e. on 24.03.2009 the deceased Kallu Sonkar, the husband of the claimant Meera Bai was working in the Ordinance Factory, Khamariya, Jabalpur on the post of Master Craftsman. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of the case at hand, this court finds that it is an undisputed fact that on the date of incident i.e. on 24.03.2009 the deceased Kallu Sonkar, the husband of the claimant Meera Bai was working in the Ordinance Factory, Khamariya, Jabalpur on the post of Master Craftsman. According to the plaint, the case of the respondent is that her husband Kallu, while drinking water in the factory, fell down and started vomiting, he was immediately taken to the Nirmani Hospital where on examination he was diagnosed with CVA with (R) Hemiplegia, on external examination it was found that he did not suffer any injury, external or internal. He was also taken to Anant Hospital, Jabalpur where he succumbed to his ailment on 26.03.2009. Before the Commissioner, the respondent has examined herself as PW-1 and has stated in her cross examination that the deceased fell down while drinking water and his head hit a metal sheet causing head injury resulting in his death. Counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that this was not the case of the complainant in her plaint under Section 10 of the Act where it is stated that the deceased Kallu died due to respiratory failure on the spot due to heavy work assigned to him. Attention of this court is also invited to the deposition of PW-2 Dr. Mukund G.Nema who, in his cross examination has said that the death was due to sudden heart failure. Thus, it is submitted that there was no occasion for the learned Commissioner to pass the impugned order in favour of the respondent. On behalf of the appellant, DW-1 Dr. G.N.Sadkiya has been examined who has stated that on 24.03.2009 he was posted at O.F.K. Factory and had examined Kallu Sonkar who had fell down while drinking water and had become unconscious. He was also in the habit of smoking and drinking and he had suffered Cerebral vascular accident leading to the paralysis of his right side. 8. On a close scrutiny of the evidence, it reveals that the claimant/respondent Meera Bai is an illiterate person, as she has not signed anywhere and her thumb impressions are on every document supposed to be signed by her, thus, while appreciating her evidence, her background, the lower strata of the society to which she belongs is also required to be kept in mind. Indeed, in her deposition she has stated that the death was due to head injury after her husband fell down, but, in the considered opinion of this court, her deposition should not be appreciated on its face value and has to be considered in the light of the other evidence adduced on her behalf before the Commissioner. 9. PW-1 in her examination in chief has stated that her husband died while on duty, she has also stated that she is illiterate and that the claim has been filed in English. PW-2 Dr. M.G. Nema has stated that the deceased Kallu Sonkar died due to complications relating to high blood pressure which was the result of work pressure. It is surprising that there is absolutely no cross examination of this witness on vital issues leading to the death of Kallu. So far as the application filed by the respondent/claimant is concerned, this Court is constrained to observe that the same is badly drafted and is flooded with many grammatical mistakes as well. 10. On the other hand, even the appellant's witness DW-1 Dr. T.K. Sadakiya has not reflected on the death of the deceased workman and has stated that earlier he had no decease, which, in the considered opinion of this Court is not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof cast on the appellant. It is further observed that in their reply the appellant has not even pleaded that the death of Kallu was not as a result of work pressure or burden resulting in his death. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and also relying upon the dictum as laid down by the Apex court in the case of Param Pal Singh (supra), the substantial questions of law are answered in negative and the appeal having no merit, is hereby dismissed at the cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid to the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. Certified copy as per rules.