HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CIWATnSGARH: BII-A^PVR DIVISION8ENGU CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLESHRID.R.DESHMUKH,J. APPUCANT INSURANCE RESPONDENTS CUUMANTS Misc. Aooeal N0. 126 OF 2006 Orientet Insurance Com. Ltd., Branch II, Sai Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS .QWNm 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Smt. Sulochana, widow of late Madhukar Rao, aged 40 years. Ku. Manisha, D/o. Late Madhukar Rao, a9ed22yeare. Ku. Madhavi, D/o.Late Madhukar Rao, Manish Kumar, S/o. Late Madhukar Rao,aged19years. Ku. Mal, D/o. late Madhukar Rao. aged 18years. Ku. Megha D/o. late Madhukar Rao, aged 16 yeare. (Minor) through natural guardian mother Smt. Sidoctona wklow of Madhutar Ftoo Gurdeep Singh Gareha, S/o. Shri TrHok Singh Garcha, R/o. G.E. Road. Tatibandh. Raipur, TehsN & Dist. Raipur (CG). Present: Shri Abhishek Sinha, teamed counsel for ttie appellanA. ORALORDER fPassed on 21it February, 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed l>y S.R.NAYAK.CJ: In this appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatfon has been attettked on two grounds. The first ground is that the Commisstoner has not jusfified In taking the monttily income of the deceased at Rs.3000/- tw the purpose of compufing compensaUon. The second ground is that ttw cteaBi of the •V, —^-- deceased has no n®(usto the employment of the deceased, because, he diedofheart-attack. (2) Both the corrtentions are devoid of merit. The Commissioner has referred to the evidence adduced before him. Atthough the employer jn his evidence stated that he was paying Rs. 1.500/- per rnonth and Rs. 700/- as Deamess Altowance, the claimante have deposed before the Commissioner that the deceased was paid salary of Rs.3,000/- and Dearness Allowance of Rs.1,500/". In the premise of the divergent pieces of evklence, the Commissioner took the income of the deceased, via- media, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. In that view <rf the matter, we oamwt take any exception to the discretion exerdsed by the Commisstoner for Workmen's Compensation. The second contention urged before us is totalfy meritless. The deceased died of heart-attack white he was unloading the vehicle in the garage and reveraing the vehide. Tlw death actmittedly took place in the course of the emptoyment. It is well settted that tf a man dtes out of strain generated in the course of employment.the employer is accountable and liabte to pay compensation. Therefore, the cteath ofthe deceased had a direct nexus with the stFain of the employment on the deceased. Therefore, the Commissioner is justified in direcUng the appeltant Insurance Company to pay compensation. (2) Above all, this appeal does not involve any substantial question of law whteh is required to be deckled by this Court. The issue raised before the Court pertains to the domain of appreciation of the evidence in recording factual findings. No legal issues arise for decision making, much less any substential legal issue. Lookir^g from any angte, this appeal is liaMe to dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No coste. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^