JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been filed at the instance of the Insurance Company. 2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 was a driver under respondent No. 2. He sustained injury while driving the vehicle. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner directed a sum of Rs. 31,769/- to be paid as compensation. Since the vehicle was insured with the present appellant, it was directed that the amount should be paid by the present appellant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the finding of the Commissioner that the claimant was a workman and sustained injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment cannot be sustained. He has further submitted that even though the loss of earning capacity has been assessed at 30% in fact, the claimant who was a driver had renewed his driving licence which indicates that there was no loss of earning capacity. 4. The finding of the Commissioner to the effect that the claimant was a workman and had sustained injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment is based on evidence on record. The evidence of the claimant himself has not been successfully challenged. It is essentially a finding of fact which is not available to be challenged in an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. Prima facie, the second contention appears to have some force. There is some material on record to show that the driving licence of the claimant has been renewed even after the accident. Moreover, the evidence regarding the loss of earning capacity also does not categorically indicate the percentage of loss of earning capacity and the finding appears to be faulty. Keeping in view the scanty material on record to determine the percentage of loss of earning capacity, it would have been necessary to remit the matter to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for fresh determination on this aspect. However, the learned counsel for claimant-respondent No. 1 submits that in case the matter is remitted to the Commissioner at this stage, it is likely to linger for some time, and the claimant-respondent is likely to be harassed. However, the learned counsel for claimant-respondent No. 1 submits that in case the matter is remitted to the Commissioner at this stage, it is likely to linger for some time, and the claimant-respondent is likely to be harassed. It is further stated that instead of remanding the matter to the Commissioner, it may be finally disposed of at this stage in the spirit of Lok Adalat and, if necessary, some amount may be reduced. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission and having regard to the nature of injuries as available on record, I consider that award of a sum of Rs. 22,500/- as compensation shall meet the ends of justice. During the pendency of the appeal, the entire awarded amount had been deposited and has been invested in fixed deposit. It is, therefore, directed that claimant-respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 22,500/-along with the proportionate accrued interest and the balance amount along with the proportionate accrued interest shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. 7. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.