JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.09.2003 passed in W.C. Application No. 41/2000 by the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act, Labour Court, Vadodara vide which the workman has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,44,620/- with 12% interest, the opponent No. 2 - Insurance Company of the Truck involved in the accident has come in this Appeal. 2. The brief facts of this case are :- "A tempo bearing Registration No. GJ.6.U.8123 was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. On 07.08.1998, when the claimant was driving this tempo, an accident took place near Goblag Chowkdi, near Matar on the National Highway No. 8 and a collision of the tempo occurred with Truck No. GJ.7.E.8579 which was coming from the other side. In this accident, the claimant received permanent disability @ 30% and was unable to do his job of driving after this accident." 3. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 2,60,292/-. The Tribunal took into account disability and the fact that the claimant could not perform his duty as a driver, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,44,620/-. Aggrieved by this award, the Insurance Company has come in an Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has contended that the tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. According to him, the claimant was in fact getting a salary of Rs. 1,300/- per month. In absence of any evidence to prove the salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded the award and the aforementioned compensation. 5. This Court has considered submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company. Though the claimant was served, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the claimant today. So this Court has to rely on the documents available on the file. The main argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is regarding the income of the appellant. According to him, the primary onus was on the driver to prove that he was getting salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month and in absence of any evidence in this regard, the findings of the Tribunal who have assessed this income was liable to be reversed. According to him, the owner of the truck has himself stepped into the witness box and stated that he was paying salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month and in absence of any evidence in this regard, the findings of the Tribunal who have assessed this income was liable to be reversed. According to him, the owner of the truck has himself stepped into the witness box and stated that he was paying salary of Rs. 1,300/- per month. However his oral submissions have not been accepted by the Commissioner. 6. The accident in question and employment of the claimant is not in dispute. The dispute remains regarding the salary which was being paid to the claimant by his employer. The trial Court seems to have relied upon the testimony of the claimant while reaching to the figure of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Relevant portion of the reasoning given by the trial Court is reproduced as under :- "25. Considering oral evidence of the applicant the opponents have not taken out which can be said that the evidence of the applicant was not trust worthy. Only suggestions are made on behalf of the opponents. Only suggestions are not substantial evidence according to me. The opponent No. 1 has not produced any documentary evidence regarding quantum of salary paid to the applicant. Therefore in absence of any documentary evidence regarding salary, adverse inference should be drawn against the opponent No. 1 and the fact that the applicant was drawing Rs. 2,500/- per month should be believed." 7. There cannot be any straight jacket formula which can be followed while awarding compensation. This has to be based on guess work. Keeping in view the extent of disability and status of parties, the Commissioner seems to have rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 2,44,620/- with 12% interest and there is no illegality in the Award passed by the Commissioner. 8. Resultantly, the Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed