JUDGMENT : P B Bajanthri, J. - Instant appeal is by the appellant-Insurance Company questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 18.09.2012, passed by the Labour Officer Cum Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Belagavi (for short "the Commissioner") in W.C.No.9 OF 2012. 2. The deceased was driver with 1st respondent which is a proprietor concern, M/s.Venkateshwar Transport, Landagewadi, Taluka-Kavate Mahankal, Maharastra State. The deceased was driving the tanker bearing Registration No.MH-10/AQ-2777 on 04.01.2012. While he was driving the tanker between the stretch of Kavate Mahankal to Jayagadh he was feeling uneasiness. While he was driving the vehicle from Jayagadh to Ratnagiri Road, near Dandisatta due to feeling uneasiness, he parked the tanker on the road side and got admitted in Parker Hospital, Ratnagiri. It seems, the doctor at Parker Hospital advised him to approach Dr. Prabhu Hospital, Kolhapur for the purpose of taking further treatment, for which, he has obliged the advice and proceeded to take treatment in Dr. Prabhu Hospital at Kolhapur, where he died at about 12.10 a.m. on 05.01.2012. A case of accident was registered at Jayagadh Police Station. Arising out of the aforesaid accident, the legal heirs of the deceased-Rajaram Yashawant Mali filed claim petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner proceeded to pass the judgment on 18.09.2012, while fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the liability fastened on the Insurance Company is incorrect in view of the factual aspects of the incident. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that, death of the deceased is not when he was driving the vehicle, he had stopped the vehicle and gone for taking treatment in a hospital where he died due to hypertension and chronic blood pressure. Death of the deceased is not arising out of the employment and so also while using the insured vehicle. Therefore, fastening the liability by the Commissioner on the Insurance Company is arbitrary and illegal and so also contrary to Sections 140 and 143 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires accident claim, that could be only with reference to the user of the vehicle. It is also contended that the stress which was occurred while he was driving, has not been proved so as to extend any compensation. It is also contended that the stress which was occurred while he was driving, has not been proved so as to extend any compensation. In the Doctor's certificate which is marked as Ex.P-5, it is specified that death is due to the Hypertension intracerebral bleed and the author of the death certificate is not examined so as to ascertain the cause of the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that, no documents have been produced whether deceased had any issue relating to hypertension or not. The Commissioner has not considered each of the contentions raised by the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that, for the purpose of fixing the liability on the Insurance Company two ingredients are required namely course of employment, injury or death occurred out of employment which are not proved in the present case. In support of the appellant's contentions he relied on the unreported judgment Appeal (Civil) No.6201 of 2004 dated 11.07.2006 passed in the case of Jyothi Ademma v. Plant Engineer, Nellore and another where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that there was no prove of stress and strain when workmen died. He has cited at another decision Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti and another decided on 10.11.2006, in which it was pointed out that nothing has been brought on record to show that the heart attack was caused while on employment. Even according to the employer at the relevant time he was merely getting down from the vehicle. In the present case also the deceased got down from the Tanker and got treatment in a hospital and thereafter he died, therefore stress and strain has not been proved by producing any material evidence. Accordingly, the Commissioner's order dated 18.09.2012 is liable to be set aside insofar as fixing the liability on the Insurance Company. One more decision cited namely Rashida Haroon Kupurade Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others, (2010) ACJ 721 (paragraph 7 & 9), wherein cause of the death has not been proved with reference to the vehicle and liability is on the owner of the vehicle so also death should have been during the course of the workmen employment. 4. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others, (2010) ACJ 721 (paragraph 7 & 9), wherein cause of the death has not been proved with reference to the vehicle and liability is on the owner of the vehicle so also death should have been during the course of the workmen employment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied on cross-examination of RW1 which has been dealt by the Commissioner in paragraph 13 to the extent that there was an independent investigation by the Insurance Company and it is not disputed. At the same time, such investigation report has not been made available for the Commissioner to point out as to whether the death of the deceased is during the course of the employment or not. In the absence of investigation report, which is stated to have been conducted by the Insurance Company, which is not adduced in the evidence, it is crystal clear that, the Insurance Company is hiding something. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that, in an identical matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Param Pal Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, (2013) ACJ 526 at para 27 and 28 considered the death of the deceased arising out of driving heavy vehicle due to grave strain and stress, with reference to driving a long distance and so also considered the nature of the duty of the heavy vehicle driver how it would be stressful. Thus, it was submitted that the appellant have not made out case so as to interfere with the Commissioner's order dated 18.09.2012. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Question for consideration in the present appeal is whether the deceased driver of the heavy vehicle (Tanker) died during the course of the employment and due to strain and stress or not? The contention of the appellant that, the Doctor while giving death certificate has stated that, death is due to 'Hypertensive intracerebral bleed'. In other words, the deceased must be suffered from hyper tension and he has died due to such illness and not arising out of employment. The claimants have not proved that, the death of the deceased is due to stress and strain during his employment as a driver of the heavy truck. In other words, the deceased must be suffered from hyper tension and he has died due to such illness and not arising out of employment. The claimants have not proved that, the death of the deceased is due to stress and strain during his employment as a driver of the heavy truck. In the absence of any evidence claimants are not entitled to compensation under Sections 140 and 143 user of the vehicle, twin conditions for the purpose of claiming compensation with reference to the accident. The same has not been proved. In this regard, he has cited the aforesaid decisions. Undisputed facts are that, driving a heavy vehicle is a stressful job as is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Param Pal Singh (supra) at para 27 & 28 reads as under: "27. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was casual connection to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, maybe due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1.152 km away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long10 distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependent solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his lifespan. Such an 'untoward mishap' can therefore be reasonably described as an 'accident' as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer's trade or business. 28. Having regard to the evidence placed on record there was no scope to hold that the deceased was simply traveling in the vehicle and that there was no obligation for him to undertake the work of driving. 28. Having regard to the evidence placed on record there was no scope to hold that the deceased was simply traveling in the vehicle and that there was no obligation for him to undertake the work of driving. On the other hand, the evidence as stood established proved the fact that the deceased was actually driving the truck and that in the course of such driving activity as he felt uncomfortable he safely parked the vehicle on the side of the road near a hotel soon whereafter he breathed his last. In such circumstances, we are convinced that the conclusion of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the death of the deceased was in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent No.2 was perfectly justified and the conclusion to the contrary reached by the learned Judge of the High Court in the order impugned in this appeal deserves to be set aside. The appeal stands allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The order or the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation shall stand restored and there shall be no order as to costs." 7. The cited decisions like Jyothi, Shakuntala and Rashida cases (supra) could be distinguished as in the case of Jyothi Ademma and Shakuntala, wherein it is held that the nature of job has not been stated as it is only referred as a workmen. Similarly, in the case of Rashida, the issue considered is relating whether the death is arising of the employment or not. In the present case the deceased was a heavy vehicle driver - Tanker, whereas in the Param Pal Singh case the issue was relating to the driver who was driving a truck. In fact, nature of the case in the hand as well as Param Pal Singh (supra) are almost identical. There also driver while driving the truck felt giddiness and parked the vehicle on the roadside, who was taken to hospital and declared brought dead. Accordingly, the cited decision by the appellants are distinguished in view of the Parampal Singh (Supra). Strain and stress issue which are required to be proved is beyond the control of the claimants for the reasons that, if the doctor fails to write/give opinion as to the reasons for death or even while writing Hypertensive intracerebral bleed, it is only a conclusion and not supported by any reasons. Strain and stress issue which are required to be proved is beyond the control of the claimants for the reasons that, if the doctor fails to write/give opinion as to the reasons for death or even while writing Hypertensive intracerebral bleed, it is only a conclusion and not supported by any reasons. Therefore, one cannot pick up the words used in the death certificate so as to come to the conclusion that there is no stress or strain while driving the vehicle. That apart, to determine the stress and strain in a person or it all depends on the medical examination. The deceased was admitted to Hospital where he died, while giving death certificate, the Doctor has not elaborated the reason for death. Therefore, one has to come to the conclusion that the deceased while feeling uneasiness. He himself driven the truck on the right side and got down and went to take treatment in the Hospital. Therefore, one has to draw inference before the deceased applying his mind for the purpose of parking the truck on the right side on account of stress and strain only. In fact, one must appreciate the deceased had applied his mind to park the truck on road side and got down, had he proceeded it would have been disastrous. 8. In view of these facts and circumstances, the appellants have not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the Commissioner dated 18.09.2012, passed in W.C.No.09 of 2012. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, be transmitted the concerned jurisdictional Court for the purpose of disbursement in accordance with law.