JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The Insurance Company has filed this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. Claimant-respondent No. I filed the claim case before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur (in short, the ''Commissioner") claiming compensation on account of death of his son in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. The son of the claimant was working as a Helper in a Canter Bus bearing number OR-15-A-6626 belonging to the present respondent No. 2. On July 12, 1995 while the deceased was unloading goods from the Canter Bus, another truck dashed against the Canter Bus as a result of which the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The owner filed written statement admitting the employment and death of the deceased on account of the accident. He, however, pleaded that the compensation amount should be paid by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed separate written statement and disputed the allegations in the claim petition and called upon the claimant to prove the allegations. 3. The Commissioner found that the son of the claimant was a workman and he died on account of the accident arising out of and in course of employment. He directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 86,764/- to the claimant as compensation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the deceased was a Helper in the bus, the Insurance Company was not required to cover such liability. The learned counsel for claimant-respondent No. 1 submitted that even assuming that the liability in respect of the Helper is not required to be covered under the policy, the Helper can be considered to be a passenger in the bus itself and as such liability may be covered. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the claimant has referred to the decision of this Court in Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sanjukta Pattnaik and Anr., Misc. Appeal No. 613/1996 disposed of on July 30, 1999, as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Gyan Singh Babaji v. Jitendranath Bisoi and Anr., A.H.O. No. 22/1996 disposed of on September 17, 1999. 5. Ltd. v. Smt. Sanjukta Pattnaik and Anr., Misc. Appeal No. 613/1996 disposed of on July 30, 1999, as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Gyan Singh Babaji v. Jitendranath Bisoi and Anr., A.H.O. No. 22/1996 disposed of on September 17, 1999. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant distinguishes the decision of the Division Bench by stating that the said decision related to a claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act and if the son of the claimant is taken to be a passenger, the claim application could not have been filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. He has further submitted that though the decision in Misc. Appeal No. 613/1996 supports the contention of the counsel for the claimant, the said decision has been subjected to an appeal before the Division Bench in this Court. 6. While the present appeal was being heard, a suggestion was given that the matter may be disposed of in the spirit of Lok Adalat and accordingly hearing of the appeal was adjourned. On the subsequent date, some of the officials of the appellant-Insurance Company were also present at the time of hearing of the appeal. In course of hearing, the question cropped up as to whether the Commissioner would have jurisdiction in case it is held that the Helper was a passenger in the bus and in such an event the question of remanding the application to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for determination would have to be considered. However, if the matter would go to the Claims Tribunal, the question of payment of interest may crop up and, therefore, such a course may be counter-productive for the appellant. Having regard to all these aspects and keeping in view the fact that there is no dispute about the death of the son of the claimant in an accident involving the vehicle in question, and in order to avoid any further harassment or delay, it is appropriate to dispose of the appeal in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Having regard to the various facts and circumstances of the case, I think interest of justice would be served by directing payment of Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand) as compensation. 7. It appears that the awarded amount has been kept in fixed deposit in this Court. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. Having regard to the various facts and circumstances of the case, I think interest of justice would be served by directing payment of Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand) as compensation. 7. It appears that the awarded amount has been kept in fixed deposit in this Court. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy-five thousand) along with proportionate accrued interest may be paid to claimant-respondent No. 1 and the balance amount along with proportionate accrued interest may be refunded to the Insurance Company by account payee cheques. This be complied with by October 29, 1999. Subject to the aforesaid observations and direction, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.