JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. The Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay has challenged an award given by the Claims Commissioner, Railways. The brief facts for the purposes of this petition may be noticed. 2. 15 Dr. Grand Truck Express met with an accident on 6th of January, 1985. The < accident took place between Hetampur and Gher Railway Station of Central Railway. It collided with a goods train, Respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar Sharma filed a petition under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act claiming compensation, According to him, he was travelling as a passenger in second class compartment. He boarded the train at Betul railway station. His destiny was Agra. He has given the number of the seat and the coach he wan to travel in. The necessary accommodation in the Railway Coach was got reserved earlier. 3. The Claims Commissioner, came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 4,650/-. In addition to that, the fact that the claimant had come to attend the Court was also taken note of. After giving due allowances, the expenses so incurred, the total amount of Rs. 5,182/- was directed to be given by way of compensation. This order was passed by the Claims Commissioner on 23rd of January, 1986, which is the subject-matter of this petition. 4. The basic argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India is that the claim is based on oral evidence. The statement made by the claimant is to the effect that he was Production Manager in Betul Oil and Flour Private Limited, Industrial Area, Betul; on account of the accident he was unable to attend to his duties for a period of almost one month. He has further stated that he was given a sum of Rs. 250/- by the railways but nothing was paid thereafter. He admits that he was examined by the railways doctors and he was told to get himself checked in the Agra hospital but the claimant expressed his inability because his wife arid children were also along with him. 5. The claimant has stated hat on account of the accident, he received injuries in the head and also an injury just above his eyes. 5. The claimant has stated hat on account of the accident, he received injuries in the head and also an injury just above his eyes. The break-up of the various items which were taken note of for giving relief to the respondent No. 1 by the Claims Commissioner are as under: (a) Expenses incurred for medical treatment Rs. 2615.00 (b) On account of salary deducted for absence from duty Rs. 1306.60 (c) For mental worries and Bodily pains Rs. 1000.00 (d) Expenses incurred for journey to attend the Claims Commissioner Rs. 532.00 ------------- Total Rs. 5453.60 -------------- Less the amount paid by the railways (-)Rs. 250.00 -------------- 5203.60 6. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India is that the claimant has not produced any receipt or the doctor who treated him. It may be seen that the accident took place is not denied. The fact that the petitioner was given some interim compensation of Rs. 250/- is again not denied. No evidence has been led to the contrary. The fact that the petitioner had suffered an injury above his eyes has again been not disputed. In any case, the finding of fact recorded by the Claims Commissioner 1 cannot be said to be such a finding which requires to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The railway authorities would remit the amount to the petitioner within a period of three months failing which the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the application was decided by the Claims Commissioner, Railways. 7. This petition is disposed of as indicated above.