JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This is an Appeal at the instance of Insurance Company as against the judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Angul involving W.C. Case No.52/2007. 2. Factual background involving the case is that the claimant being the victim put up a claim application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Angul submitting that he was working as a Helper under Respondent No.2, Opposite Party No.1 therein in his Truck bearing Regn. No.OR-19-C-9354 having a National Permit. It is stated, on 8.8.2007 at about 4.30 A.M., while the Helper, Raghunath Behera along with the Driver of the Truck were proceeding on N.H.-4 to their destination near Balapur of Maharastra to their destination near Balapur of Maharastra, when the said Truck was about to over come one parked Truck bearing Regin. No.CG-04-J-8363, suddenly another Bus came from the front side and to avoid head head on collusion, the Driver turned the Truck to its left side, as a result the Truck dashed on the backside of the parked Truck causing Raghunath Behera, the Applicant sustaining multiple injuries on several parts of the body. After the accident the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Ankola of Maharastra and after two days of treatment there, he returned to Angul where he was treated in the District Hospital, Angul. It is claimed that due to such accident, the injured sustained fracture injuries on his left leg below the knee and lost his index finger and phalanx of both the hands and sustained bleeding injuries on several parts of his body. The Claimant claimed that for such accident, he became permanent disabled at 100%. The Claimant also claimed his age was 18 years at the relevant point of time and further claimed his wages to be Rs.2200/- per month. Thus the Claimant made a claim of Rs.2,98,822/- along with other benefits as provided in the Statute. 3. Contesting the case, the O.P.-Owner entered appearance but did not file any written statement. However, the Insurance, O.P.2 appeared and filed Written Statement disputing the entire claim application thereby disowning its liability. 4. Based on rival contentions of the parties, the Authority Below framed the following Issues :- "a) Whether Raghunath Behera was a 'workman' within the meaning of the W.C. Act, 1923 ? However, the Insurance, O.P.2 appeared and filed Written Statement disputing the entire claim application thereby disowning its liability. 4. Based on rival contentions of the parties, the Authority Below framed the following Issues :- "a) Whether Raghunath Behera was a 'workman' within the meaning of the W.C. Act, 1923 ? b) Whether he met with an accident arising out of and in course of his employment ? c) Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due or any part of that amount ? d) Whether O.Ps. are liable to pay such compensation as is due ? If so, by whom payable ?" 5. Entering into trial, the Claimant also examined witnesses thereby attempting to establish the injury he suffered involving a Truck having the policy coverage through Policy No.034001/31/07/01/00000075 valid from 28.4.2007 till 27.4.2008 issued by O.P.2. The Insurance Company even though resisted the claim but however did not lead any evidence in its defence. Answering the issue, the Commissioner ultimately finding the accident arising in course and arising out of employment finally shifting the responsibility on O.P.2 for there being a valid Insurance Policy, directed O.P.2 to indemnify O.P.1 and consequently, directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,98,822/- towards compensation within thirty days of the judgment, failing which there was also direction to attract other benefits provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 6. Sri R.C.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant though not disputing the accident involving the applicant in course and arising out of employment and also the coverage the accident through Insurance Policy No.034001/31/07/01/00000075 valid from 28.4.2007 till 27.4.2008, however contended that the quantum involving the compensation on the premises that in presence of medical supporting establishing 40% of disability, there is no material available with the Commissioner to come to conclusion that there is loss of disability of 40% leading to loss of earning at 100%. Sri Sahoo taking this Court to the discussions of the Authority below, particularly on Issue No.(c) attempted to substantiate its claim through the recording therein. Bringing to the notice of the recording of the Authority below to the effect that on analysis of evidence led from the side of the Applicant, it is seen that there is no substantial evidence to hold that the Applicant lost his earning capacity. Bringing to the notice of the recording of the Authority below to the effect that on analysis of evidence led from the side of the Applicant, it is seen that there is no substantial evidence to hold that the Applicant lost his earning capacity. Sri Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant, therefore, contended that there is no logical leading to the conclusion taking disability of 40% to be 100% lost of earning capacity and thus made request to the Court at least to remit the matter back to the Commissioner to give a right conclusion on the loss of earning capacity and thereby reducing the aspect of compensation amount involved. 7. Considering the submission of Sri Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court entering into the observation involving the claim of the parties finds, there is no denial to the accident taken place involving the Truck having a valid Insurance Policy at the relevant point of time. Further there remains no dispute that the accident arose in course and out of employment. Further there is also no dispute that there being a valid Insurance Policy, the liability on Opposite Party No.1 is to be repudiated by Opposite Party No.2, Insurance Company. The limited challenge involving the impugned order being a mechanical assessment to reach the conclusion of 100% earning capacity in view of medical supporting establishing 40% disability, this Court entering into the factual aspect involving injury by the Claimant finds, undisputedly the Claimant sustained multiple injuries on several part of his body. It is also not disputed that the Claimant was 18 years of age at the time of accident and working as a Helper in the Truck having National Permit. Looking to the medical supporting, this Court finds, for the Certificate issued by the Chief District Medical Officer, there is following injury sustained by the Claimant. The Claimant suffers from amputation of left hand Index Finger two Phalanges and right hand Index Finger one Phalanx and post traumatic defects of left leg. There is a disability certificate of the competent authority observing that Claimant suffered disability to the extent of 40%. The Claimant suffers from amputation of left hand Index Finger two Phalanges and right hand Index Finger one Phalanx and post traumatic defects of left leg. There is a disability certificate of the competent authority observing that Claimant suffered disability to the extent of 40%. However, looking to the nature of injury and the suffering of the Claimant, there may be a case that coming to 100% loss of earning capacity might be mechanical, and therefore, this Court even though finds, there is a case of re-assessment on the loss of earning capacity but however, keeping in view the accident taken place on 8.8.2007 and in the meantime, thirteen years have passed, there is not even payment of a single pie to the Claimant, even there being a case for reduction in compensation and for the full stay of such disbursement by this Court, this Court observes, for the ground of challenge, the Appellant Counsel could have volunteered to the Court for granting stay to some extent instead of granting full stay on disbursement of the amount resulting there is no grant of compensation. 8. Keeping all these in view and the long suffering of the Claimant for full stay of disbursement for all these years, this Court instead of remitting the matter to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, however keeping in view the age of the Claimant and the loss he has sustained at his youth being a Helper of a Truck and in absence of any evidence to prove the contrary, this Court taking a pragmatic view reduces the loss of earning from 80% as earning capacity and reduces the compensation of Rs.2,98,822/- by 20%, which comes to Rs.2,39,106/- (Rupees two lakh thirty-nine thousand one hundred six). For retention of the whole compensation amount with the Commissioner, this Court partly allowing the Appeal on reduction of the compensation amount to Rs.2,39,106/- (Rupees two lakh thirty-nine thousand one hundred six) directs for release of the said amount including interest earned in the meantime for the same in favour of the Claimant by ensuring his production at the Special Messenger cost of the Insurance Company. The entire exercise will be undertaken within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The entire exercise will be undertaken within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The balance compensation amount of Rs.59,716/- (Rupees Fifty-Nine thousand seven hundred sixteen) plus interest accrued on the same in the meantime may be released in favour of the Insurance Company also along with interest accrued on the same in the mean while. Considering that the impugned judgment was passed on 30.1.2012 and the deposit being made on 18.6.2012, the Claimant will also be entitled to interest @ 6% on the compensation of Rs.2,39,106/- (Rupees two lakh thirty-nine thousand one hundred six) from the date of judgment till the date of deposit before the Commissioner, which amount shall be calculated by the Insurance Company and paid to the Claimants. As agreed, the interest factor involving the above direction may also be deducted from the balance receipt of Insurance from the Commissioner and to be paid to the workmanClaimant. 9. The FAO stands disposed of accordingly. 10. The parties may utilise the soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notification No.4587 dated 25.3.2020.