JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Both the insurer as well as claimants are in appeal. 2. The insurer is challenging the order passed on the claim application filed under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, contending that the deceased driver died as a result of heart attack and this death, therefore, had no nexus with his employment and consequently, employer would not be liable for the compensation. 3. The Tribunal, after assessing the evidence on record, has recorded a clear finding of fact that the deceased died while he was sitting in the lorry and the death occurred during the course of his employment. 4. Learned counsel, however, argued that the evidence indicated that the gas, which he was carrying, was unloaded and therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered the death during the course of his employment. 5. The Tribunal has recorded a clear finding of fact that the employee died while he was in the lorry and therefore, it will have to be assumed that he died during the course of his employment. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the inquest report and also other evidence to arrive at this conclusion. 6. This Court in the case of DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs. SHANKARAMMA AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 6 KLJ 185 has held that even a heart attack suffered by an employee while he was under employment, would attract the liability of the employer. 7. In the light of this settled position of law and the factual finding of the Tribunal, no substantial question of law as such arises for consideration in the appeal of the insurer and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Insofar as, the appeal of the claimants is concerned, the substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the Tribunal was justified in determining the income of the deceased at Rs.7, 000.00 per month?" 9. The claimants contended that the deceased employee was earning a sum of Rs.10, 000.00 per month and also drawing a daily allowance of Rs.150.00. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved the same and has fixed the notional income at Rs.7, 000.00. In my view, in such cases, it would be appropriate to adopt the income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which for the accidents of the year 2013, would be Rs.8, 000.00. The Tribunal, however, disbelieved the same and has fixed the notional income at Rs.7, 000.00. In my view, in such cases, it would be appropriate to adopt the income determined by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which for the accidents of the year 2013, would be Rs.8, 000.00. In my view, the deceased being an employee under Employees Compensation Act, it would be appropriate to determine the monthly income at Rs.8, 000.00 per month. * * Paragraph No.10 is deleted vide chamber order dtd. 23/03/2013. 11. The income of the deceased for the purposes of determining the loss of dependency would thus be 50% of *Rs.8, 000.00 i.e., *Rs.4, 000.00. Consequently, the claimants would be entitled to *Rs.8, 61, 120.00 *(Rs.4, 000.00 x 215.28) as per Sec. 4(1)(a) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 along with interest at 12% p.a. *from the expiry of thirty days from the date of the accident. 14. In all other aspects, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appeal of the claimants is accordingly allowed in part. *The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.