JUDGMENT B.C. Varma, J 1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is against an order of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directing payment of a sum of Rs. 16,170/- as compensation to Respondent Radhey Shyam. The Respondent, in his turn, has filed a cross-objection claiming enhancement of the compensation. 2. It is common ground that the Respondent Radhey Shyam was appointed a turner by the Appellant Railway. His place of posting was Shahdol and in connection with his job, he was required to take journey to different places including Singroli. For this purpose, he was given a free pass and was permitted to take journey by passenger or goods train. On 4.10.1975 he had gone to Singroli and on his way back, instead of availing of the services of a passenger train, he boarded a trolly which met with an accident on the way. The trolly collided against a goods train and all its occupants including the Respondent suffered injuries. The Respondent was treated first at Shahdol Civil Hospital but later was shifted to Bilaspur and ultimately to Calcutta where he was treated. 3. Accordingly the Respondent completely lost his earning capacity on account of the injuries sustained by him. He had fractured his thigh bone and according to him, also suffered injuries on both the hands, legs and also head. 4. Before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, the Appellant contested that the accident did not take place in the course of employment. It was also stated that the loss of earning capacity was nil and the Respondent was entitled to no compensation. On assessment of evidence the learned Commissioner found that Respondent Radhey Shyam suffered injury in the course of his employment and because the injury arose in the course of employment and therefore, held the Appellant liable. Assessing the loss at 50%, a sum of Rs. 16,173/- has been awarded as compensation. 5. The evidence adduced by Radhey Shyam is that on return journey from Singroli, he found a trolly going to Shahdol. He requested the in-charge for a lift. The in-charge, namely, Mr. Sharma obtained due permission of the Controller and allowed Radhey Shyam to travel in that trolly. This evidence was sought to be rebutted. The learned Commissioner chose to rely upon the evidence adduced by Radhey Shyam and has come to a conclusion that he was permitted to travel in the trolly. The in-charge, namely, Mr. Sharma obtained due permission of the Controller and allowed Radhey Shyam to travel in that trolly. This evidence was sought to be rebutted. The learned Commissioner chose to rely upon the evidence adduced by Radhey Shyam and has come to a conclusion that he was permitted to travel in the trolly. The further finding is that the accident arose when Radhey Shyam was returning from Singroli. Kashinath Sanyal (AW 1) has stated that Respondent Radhey Shyam was asked to go to Singroli to repair some fault in Block Signal Instrument and the accident took place when he was coming back to the head-quarters i.e., to Shahdol. This evidence has been accepted by the Commissioner. It will therefore, be legitimate to infer that the accident arose in the course of employment i.e., in the course of the work which the workman was employed to do and which is incidental to it. I am not prepared to hold that by travelling by the trolly, Radhey Shyam exposed himself to any added peril. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Commissioner was right in holding that Radhey Shyam sustained injuries in the course of his employment and that injuries, arose out of that employment. 6. Mr. Mukherjee for the Appellant, however, is right in saying that while awarding compensation, the learned Commissioner has not cared to scrutinise the evidence and has acted merely on some guesswork which is not warranted. It is true that Radhey Shyam has deposed that he sustained injuries also on the head, legs and hands and that both his hands had become useless. But he himself has examined Dr. A.K. Sen Gupta (PW 4). According to Dr. Sen Gupta the only injury suffered by Radhey Shyam was a fracture of his thigh bone. Besides this, he only noticed two abrasions on the right knee. No other injury was noticed by the doctor either on the head or on the hands of Radhey Shyam. The learned Commissioner, therefore committed an error in relying on this evidence adduced by Radhey Shyam himself. He was, therefore, not right in saying that Radhey Shyam also sustained injuries on the legs, hands and head. The only injury sustained appears to be a fracture of thigh bone that might have resulted in shortening of the leg. Even for this, we have no clinching evidence. He was, therefore, not right in saying that Radhey Shyam also sustained injuries on the legs, hands and head. The only injury sustained appears to be a fracture of thigh bone that might have resulted in shortening of the leg. Even for this, we have no clinching evidence. In my opinion, in this state of evidence, the loss of earning capacity of Radhey Shyam could not be assessed at more than 25%. That being so, the compensation awarded has to be reduced accordingly. 7. The appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. The award of compensation is reduced by 50% and Radhey Shyam is held entitled to only Rs. 8,085/- instead of a sum of Rs. 16,170/- as awarded by the Commissioner. The cross-objection is dismissed. Under these circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal allowed.