THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 810 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 13.03.2003 in W.C.No.26 of 2002 on the file of the on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad, wherein consequent on the death of the deceased J.Bhaskar Reddy, who was a driver of the appellant, a claim was made and allowed. According to the claim petition, on 19.09.2001 at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased was driving the bus bearing No.AEZ 4673 from Barkatpura to Banjara Hills and near Barkatpura Chaman, the deceased fell ill and he was shifted to the hospital of appellant and while undergoing treatment, he died due to heart attack. The claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, claimed a compensation of Rs.3,98,820/-. The appellant has disputed its liability, but, however admitted the nature of incident. According to the appellant, the deceased died due to heart attack and not because of any personal or bodily injury and there is no nexus between the cause of death and the duties of the deceased. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, held that the deceased died during the course of employment. The lower Tribunal also relied upon the decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yashodhara Amma and another[1]. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that while the deceased was on duty, he complained of heart attack and consequently he was taken to the hospital and while undergoing treatment he died. He also contends that there is no accident and it was a natural death and consequently the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. He relied upon a decision reported in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and another[2], whereunder it was held that when there was a massive heart attack, it should be established that because of stress and strain of the work, the deceased died. Unless evidence is brought on record about the stress or strain, the Commissioner will not have any jurisdiction. Evidently, in this case, the appellant is not giving any other reason for the cause of the death of the deceased. The fact that he had heart attack while he was on duty, is not in dispute. There is no material to show that the deceased was having any past record of ill- health. When the claimant was examined, she was not questioned about the previous ill-health. The Assistant Manager was examined as R.W.1 and according to him, it was the first trip of the deceased and there is no stress on his work. Evidently, the evidence of P.W.1 claimant or R.W.1, does not show that they are eye witnesses to the incident. The conductor is the best person to speak about the nature of the incident. There is no material to show that, at that time when the deceased was on duty, there was no scope for stress or strain. It is very difficult to comprehend as to why and when stress or strain is caused. When there is no material to show about any previous illness of the deceased, a presumption has to be drawn in his favour to the effect that because of the stress or strain felt by him during the course of discharge of his duties and while at the steering he developed ill- health and died. Otherwise, there is no reason for the cause of the death of the deceased. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Tribunal does not call for any interference and a valid presumption can be drawn that the cause of death was only during the course of discharge of his duties and in employment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 810 of 2011 DATE: 29-08-2011 MR [1] 1990(1) LLJ 387 (Ker) DB; 1989 ACJ 1075 [2] AIR 2007 SC 248