JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Cuttack (in short, the “Commissioner”) in W.C. Case No. 8-D/1993.
2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 was a workman under respondent No. 2. It was stated in the application that he was a driver in respect of the Truck bearing number OAG-2959. It was further stated that while he was trying to repair the back light, the truck was driven backwards by the Helper as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. He filed the application claiming Rs. 99,000/- as compensation.
3. The owner in his written statement admitted that the claimant was the driver. The owner, however, disputed about the quantum of compensation payable and, at any rate, submitted that compensation should be paid by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company generally denied the allegations made in the claim application.
4. The Commissioner found that the claimant was a workman and had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment and accordingly directed for payment of Rs. 1,05,895/- assessing loss of earning capacity to be one hundred per cent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimant could not have been the driver of the truck as at the time of accident, the truck was driven backwards by the driver of the truck and not by the Helper. This aspect cannot be raised in an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act as it appears to be a finding of fact. At any rate, the evidence on record clearly indicates that the claimant was the driver in respect of the truck in question though the Helper had also a driving licence. It is also evident that the claimant himself had also a driving licence authorising him to drive a heavy goods vehicle. Otherwise also, the question as to whether the claimant was Helper or Driver is not very much material because, at any rate, his salary must have been more than Rs. 1,000/- per month and compensation has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- keeping in view the Schedule.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant next contended that though the doctor stated that the percentage of disability was ninety per cent, he had not stated anything about the loss of earning capacity and, at any rate, the Commissioner had no justification to assess the loss of earning capacity at one hundred per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon several decisions of this Court submitted that the matter should be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh decision on this aspect after giving opportunity of adducing further evidence to both parties particularly by re-examining the doctor. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent submitted that the claimant will be harassed further as he has not received compensation even though the accident occurred in the year 1991. He has, therefore, submitted that instead of considering the question of remanding the matter, the appeal itself should be disposed of finally here in the spirit of Lok Adalat by reducing the compensation amount, if necessary.
7. Remanding the matter to the Commissioner at this stage may be counter productive, as question of payment of interest may crop up. The claimant himself had claimed Rs. 99,000/- towards compensation. Keeping in view the nature of injury and the fact that the application was of the year 1991, I think interest of justice will be served by directing payment of Rupees 99,000/- which had been claimed by the claimant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and it is directed that a sum of Rs. 99,000/- (ninety nine thousand) shall be paid to claimant-respondent No. 1. It appears that the entire awarded amount has been kept in a fixed deposit in this Court. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 99,000/- along with proportionate accrued interest may be paid to claimant-respondent No. 1 by way of account payee cheque on or before September 30, 1999, and the balance amount along with proportionate accrued interest may be refunded to the appellant by account payee cheque. There will be no order as to costs.