JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. These Civil Misc. Appeals have been preferred under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming the following reliefs: CMA No. 954/2008: "(a) That the judgment and award dated 25.04.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bhilwara in Claim Case No. WC-01/2001 may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the appellant. (b) Any other relief, which your Honour may deem just and proper may also kindly be granted in favour of the appellant." CMA No. 1211/2008: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed with costs and the judgment and award dated 25.04.2008, passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Bhilwara in Case No. 1/2001 (Fatal) may kindly be modified and compensation may kindly be enhanced up to as claimed by the appellants in their claim petition along with interest of 12% p.a. from the date of accident and penalty of 50% of the awarded compensation may also be imposed on the respondents. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the appeal, may kindly be passed." 3. Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that deceased Laxman Lal was engaged as a driver, and on the relevant date, was driving Truck No. HR 38/3305 in course of his employment; while driving the said truck, Laxman Lal expired on 30.01.1999 due to sudden heart attack. 4. Learned counsel for Insurance Company makes a limited submission that since Laxman Lal died a natural death on account of sudden heart attack, therefore, his dependants (claimants herein) are not entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He further averred that had there been any accident while driving, then also the loss caused was to be indemnified by the employer concerned under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but since the claimants' family member has expired due to heart disease while discharging the duty as a driver, driving the truck in question on a long route, therefore, his dependants are not entitled for the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has relied upon precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. reported in 2006 AIR SCW 6009, relevant portion of which reads as under: "39. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company has relied upon precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. reported in 2006 AIR SCW 6009, relevant portion of which reads as under: "39. Unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the death by way of cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the Commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant damages. In other words, the claimant was bound to prove jurisdictional fact before the Commissioner. Unless such jurisdictional facts are found, the Commissioner will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. It is now well-settled that for arriving at a finding of a jurisdictional fact, reference to any precedent would not be helpful as a little deviation from the fact of a decided case or an additional fact may make a lot of difference by arriving at a correct conclusion. For the said purpose, the statutory authority is required to pose unto himself the right question." 6. Learned counsel for Insurance Company thus, submits that since no fact regarding stress and strain during the course of employment has been pleaded in the claim petition or during statements being recorded, therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has shown from the impugned order that the consideration made vide the impugned order was wholly on account of the stress and strain being exerted upon the deceased driver due to long driving in connection with the duty assigned by the employer in question. 8. Learned counsel for respondent has further taken this Court to the decision taken by learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in regard to Issue No. 1 in which it has been concluded that the heart attack was absolutely due to stress and strain on account of very long journey being undertaken by the deceased while driving the vehicle in question from Surat to Delhi. 9. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was right in recording that the deceased was under stress and strain of employment while driving the truck for a long distance from Surat to Delhi, and thus, suffered sudden heart attack, therefore, the impugned order is justified. 10. This Court finds that the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has gathered the fact of stress and strain from the material already available on record, though specific averment regarding stress and strain was not there. Moreover, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has also rightly distinguished the judgment of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti (supra) on count of the fact that compensation was denied in the said case on count of the deceased being a Khalasi and not the actual driver. This Court, thus, does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal No. 954/2008 of the Insurance Company fails. 11. So far as the appeal of the claimants whereby they have sought interest @ 12% p.a. is concerned, the same cannot be accepted because the interest awarded by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner which is 9% p.a. is perfectly in accordance with law. Therefore, no reason for grant of relief under the Workmen's Compensation Act as prayed in the appeal filed by the claimants is made out. Hence, the appeal No. 1211/2008 preferred by the claimants also fails. 12. For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove, both the appeals are dismissed. All pending applications stand dismissed.