JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The Insurance Company has filed this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (in short, the "Commissioner") granting compensation to respondent No. 1. 2. Respondent No. 1 was a Coolie engaged in truck bearing registration number ORJ 5213 belonging to respondent No. 2. The said truck met with an accident on June 20, 1994. Due to such accident respondent No. 1 sustained several injuries and was hospitalised. Claim application was filed before the Commissioner demanding compensation on the ground that the claimant had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. 3. The owner in his written statement while admitting the employment and the accidental injury sustained by the claimant disputed other averments including the averments relating to monthly wages, age and gravity of injuries of the applicant. It was claimed that since the vehicle has been insured with the present appellant, compensation, if any, should be paid by the Insurance Company. 4. The Commissioner found that present respondent No. 1 was engaged as a workman in the truck in question of the present respondent No. 2 and had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. Considering the loss of earning capacity and the monthly wages of the claimant and the age, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 27,297/- and directed that the said amount should be paid by the Insurance Company. 5. In this appeal, it is contended by the appellant that the finding to the effect that the present respondent No. 1 was a workman is not sustainable. It is also contended that even assuming that the claimant had sustained the injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment, in the absence of any acceptable evidence on record relating to loss of earning capacity, the award cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal to ascertain the loss of earning capacity, if it is found that respondent No. 1 was, indeed, a workman under respondent No. 2. 6. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal to ascertain the loss of earning capacity, if it is found that respondent No. 1 was, indeed, a workman under respondent No. 2. 6. The finding to the effect that respondent No. 1 was a workman under respondent No. 2 and had sustained the injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment, is essentially a finding of fact not available to be challenged in an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The finding on this aspect is based on discussion of material evidence on record and it cannot be said that the finding is vitiated by any perversity. 7. The second submission of the counsel for the appellant prima facie has some force, inasmuch as the doctor has not specifically stated about the loss of earning capacity. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has, however, submitted that the accident had taken place in June, 1994 and about five years have elapsed in the mean time. It is submitted that though the opinion of the doctor is not categorical relating to loss of earning capacity, the extent of injuries can be ascertained from the evidence of the doctor as well as from other materials on record. It is, therefore, submitted that instead of remanding the matter to the Commissioner, the appeal should be finally disposed in this Court in the spirit of Lok Adalat by reducing the compensation amount, if necessary. Remanding the matter to the Commissioner at this stage may be counter-productive for the appellant as the question of payment of interest may crop up. The accident had taken place about five years back. Having regard to the various facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of injuries and period during which respondent No. 1 had to undergo treatment, interest of justice would be served by directing payment of compensation of Rs. 28,000/- to the claimant-respondent No. 1. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part and it is directed that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to claimant-respondent No. 1 from out of the deposited amount with proportionate accrued interest and the balance amount with proportionate interest (sic) to the appellant. Final Result : Partly Allowed