Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J. – This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th April, 2008 in Workmen Compensation Case No. 1 of 1999/ 33 of 1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Authority under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court”). 2. The above compensation case was filed under Section 10 and Rule 20 framed under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 praying therein for awarding compensation on account of injury sustained by respondent no.1 being the driver of the vehicle bearing No. BR-19P-6965. The owner of the said vehicle was the respondent no.2. The aforesaid vehicle which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company collided with the Truck bearing number 4P-78 No. 309 on 23rd February, 1996. 3. Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is present. However, no on appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 4. Mr. Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that all the relevant facts are not in dispute. The only submission is that the compensation as calculated by the Labour Court in the impugned order is not correct. The compensation ought to have been calculated as per the law existing on the date of the accident whereas the compensation has been calculated by the Labour Court as per the amended Act subsequent to the date of accident, and as such, the calculation is not correct. 5. Considering the submissions of the appellant and on perusal of the calculation as mentioned in the impugned order, it would appear that the compensation amount has been calculated taking into consideration the amended Act as per Act 30 of 1995 which came into effect on 15th September, 1995, and as such, the calculation does not suffer from any illegality as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. In view of the reasons as stated above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.