JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act at the instance of the Insurance Company. The claimant-respondent No. 1 filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 60,000/- on the ground that he had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment under the present respondent No. 2. It was claimed that he was the Helper in Truck bearing number WGB 5841 belonging to respondent No. 2 and on August 24, 1989 while the truck was parked on the left-side of the road due to some mechanical trouble, another truck came from behind and dashed against the truck as a result of which the Driver succumbed to the injuries, but the present claimant- respondent who was the Helper sustained injuries including fracture of right leg below the knee and fracture of left hand below the elbow. He was treated in the hospital for quite some time. The owner in his written statement while admitting about the accident stated that the compensation claimed was on the higher side. It was further stated that the truck in question had been duly insured and the liability, if any, should be met by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company denied "the allegations made in the claim petition and called upon the claimant to prove his case. 2. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Commissioner") on discussion of the materials on record came to hold that the claimant was a workman under the present respondent No. 2 and had sustained injuries in the accident arising out of and in course of employment. Considering the loss of earning capacity to be 30 per cent and taking the salary of the claimant to be Rs. 900/-, the Commissioner directed that a sum of Rs. 30,405/- should be paid. 3. In this appeal, Mr. N.K.. Mishra, learned counsel for the appeljant has vehemently contended that since the accident occurred at a time when the truck was parked on the road side, it cannot be said that the accident rose out of and in course of employment. He has further argued that from the evidence on record, it cannot be categorically concluded that the claimant was a workman under the owner. He has further argued that from the evidence on record, it cannot be categorically concluded that the claimant was a workman under the owner. It is also contended that the doctor who had examined the claimant has not stated anything about the loss of earning capacity and as such, no compensation is payable. 4. On a perusal of the record, it is not possible to accept the first two contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. Though the truck was standing on the road at the time when the accident occurred there cannot be any denial of the fact that the truck had been taken out in connection with the work of the owner. Merely because the truck had been parked due to some mechanical failure at the time of accident would not lead one to come to the conclusion that the accident did not arise out of and in course of employment. The finding of the Commissioner that the claimant-respondent was a Helper and a workman is based on discussion of the evidence and is not available to be challenged keeping in view the limited scope for interference in an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 5. Prima facie, the third contention raised by the counsel for the appellant has some substance, in the sense that the doctors have not stated categorically about the loss of earning capacity. In normal course, following the decisions of this Court on the point, the matter could have been remitted to the Commissioner for fresh disposal on this aspect after giving opportunities to both parties. However, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that the accident itself had taken place in April, 1989 and the matter has been delayed so far and the claimant would be further harassed if it is remanded at this stage. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be disposed of finally here in the spirit of Lok Adalat and if necessary some amount may be reduced. 6. Remand of the matter to the Commissioner at this stage would be counter-productive. As such keeping in view the various facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the matter finally in the High Court. 6. Remand of the matter to the Commissioner at this stage would be counter-productive. As such keeping in view the various facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the matter finally in the High Court. After going through the various materials on record including the evidence of the doctors and the documents On record, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be amply served by directing that compensation of Rs. 23,500/- should be paid to claimant-respondent No. 1. It is found that during pendency of the appeal, the awarded sum had been deposited in this Court which has been invested in a fixed deposit. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 23,500/- along with proportionate, accrued interest may be disbursed to claimant-respondent No. 1 by way of account-payee cheque or by pay order, as the case may be, and the balance amount along with proportionate accrued interest may be refunded to the Insurance Company. 7. The. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.