JUDGMENT : The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein filed the claim petition in W.C. No.6 of 2008 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada (for short “Commissioner”), seeking compensation on the death of the deceased Mutcharla Siva Kumar, who was the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP16 TU 3404 and died while he was driving lorry from Rajahmundry to Jaipur, Rajastan State with a load of paper on 11.12.2006, on the ground that they were the dependents on the deceased and they lost their bread winner. 2. The opposite party No.1 who is the employer admitted in his counter affidavit that the deceased died due to heart attack during the course of employment and he was drawing an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards salary. 3. The opposite party No.2 who was appellant insurance company filed counter affidavit denying all the material allegations made in the application inter alia has taken defense that the deceased driver was not died due to stress and strain during the course of the employment and the death does not come under the accidental death. Hence, the opposite party No.2 is not liable to indemnify the opposite No.1. 4. On behalf of the applicants who are respondents 1, 2 and 3 herein have examined two witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A16. Applicant witness–1 has denied all the suggestions which were put by opposite party No.2 and categorically stated that her husband died due to stress and strain out of employment. 5. All the documents were considered by the Commissioner and awarded compensation observing that the deceased died due to the heart attack during the course of employment and the death of the deceased comes under the purview of the accident and held that the applicants are entitled for compensation relying on the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case “Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Vs. G. Anjamma”, 2001 ACJ 1885 , wherein it was held that a death caused by chest pain while the deceased was on duty, the death occurred shall be construed during the course of employment. 6. Similarly, the Commissioner has also relied on another judgment in “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kabutari Devi & Others”, 2007 ACJ 2796 , wherein it was held that driving the long distance, especially in the night hours, would cause stress and strain to the employee. 6. Similarly, the Commissioner has also relied on another judgment in “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kabutari Devi & Others”, 2007 ACJ 2796 , wherein it was held that driving the long distance, especially in the night hours, would cause stress and strain to the employee. After considering the material on record the Commissioner held that, the deceased died due to the accident that occurred during the course of the employment and awarded an amount of Rs.3,33,246/-as compensation. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal came to be filed by the insurance company. The counsel for the appellant-insurance company has re-iterated the grounds raised in the counter affidavit filed in W.C. case and stated that the death of the deceased was not due to stress and strain and he died due to heart attack and that it does not come under the purview of the accident arising out of and in the course of employment as required under Sections 2 (1) (n) and 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner. 8. Per contra the respondents submitted that on referring the order of the Commissioner, where the Commissioner stated that the police conducted Panchanama on the dead body on 11.12.2006 and the Assistant Surgeon, M.O.C.H.C., Bandawar conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and the Doctor stated that the deceased died due to heart attack that occurred during the course of employment on 11.12.2006. The evidence categorically shows that the deceased was died due to heart attack. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on another Judgment in “Divisional Controller N E K R T C, Sarige Sadan Station Road, Gulbarga represented by Chief Law Officer Vs. Kiran W/o. Vijayakumar; Sheetal D/o Vijaykumar; Varsha D/o. Vijaykumar; Vishal S/o. Vijaykumar”, 2020 LawSuit(Kar) 1619 , wherein the Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench held that when a person is driving a vehicle, by a truck or bicycle certain amount of stress or strain would be always there on him and the Court held that heart attack during the course of driving of the vehicle which is an accident and it is personal injury arising out of and during the course of employment in accordance with Section 3 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 10. 10. The research show that the lengthy car commuting perpetuates conditions that compromise individual's health, which includes stress caused by traffic congestion, searching for parking, interacting with other drivers and safety concerns, phenomenon characterized as (travel impedance). Those who spent more time driving were more likely to report the obesity, fair/poor quality of life, high/very high psychological distress, time stress, and having physical health or emotional problems that interfered with social functioning. The study indicates that more than two hours of driving per day is particularly detrimental to the health of middle-aged and older adults, which alleviated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. Driving is a potential risk factor for a cluster of health behaviours. In view of the above, driving of a vehicle for a long distance exertion is, which leads to stress and strain and any death caused shall be construed as an accident under Sub-clause 4 of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 11. In the present case, the deceased started his driving from Rajahmundry and when he reached Nagada died during the course of treatment, which comes under the jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh State. He drove more than a considerable distance as such he suffered stress and strain and died due to the accident, which comes under the purview of Section 3(1) of the Act. 12. The Order of the Commissioner does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The issue raised by the appellant was dealt with by the Commissioner and found against the insurance company, who is appellant herein. As the order of the Commissioner does not suffer from any irregularity, I found no reasons to meddle with the order as no substantial question of law is involved and the ground raised does not come under the purview of Section 30 as contemplated under the Act. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stands closed.