1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR F.A.NO.619 OF 2009. National Insurance Co.Ltd. ..vs.. Shri Satyaranaray Darak and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 1st October, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.A.K.Somani, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S.Ghate, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Award passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. 3. Respondent no.2 was serving as a driver of a truck owned by respondent no.1. On the date of the incident, the truck was travelling from Indore to Bhopal. It was being driven by one of the other 2 drivers. The said truck gave a dash to a bus standing on the road from behind. As a result of this, respondent no.2, who was also travelling in the same truck, suffered injuries. He was removed by one of his other colleague travelling in other vehicle to the hospital. He was treated at Asha Hospital at Bhopal. Thereafter, he was brought to Nagpur. He made an application claiming that he has lost eye-sight of right eye completely and, therefore, has become incapable of driving a motor vehicle. He claimed compensation. 4. The learned Commissioner awarded compensation holding that there was 100% loss of earning capacity and he therefore, awarded compensation of Rs.4,47,944/-. The Insurance Company with whom the said truck was insured has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence, in fact, to show that the claimant had suffered injury to the right eye at the time of accident. He submits that whatever treatment that was given to the claimant was in respect of the head injury. He submits that the claimant may have suffered injuries later on, and 3 therefore, court should not have awarded the compensation. The next ground that was urged before me is that the court should not have awarded compensation on the basis of 100% disability. 6. The submission of the leaned counsel for the appellant has no substance. First; it is clear from the application itself that the claimant had suffered injury to his head and he was in coma for more than ten days. It is, therefore, obvious that the claimant has suffered injury to his brain and that is the reason he was in coma for a longer time. The claimant has examined Dr.Sudhir Pendke vide Exh.45 and he had issued a certificate (Exh.26) showing that the claimant had lost the eye-sight of the right eye and there was 30% disability. 7. Since the Medical Officer, who had examined the claimant, was himself examined in the court, there is no reason to doubt that the claimant had sustained the injury during the accident and disability was also due to the said injury. 8. The learned Commissioner has rightly observed that the claimant was working as a driver and on account of the fact that he has lost eye-sight he is not eligible for securing the driving licence and 4 driving the vehicle and therefore, the disability should be taken as 100%. The observation of the learned Commissioner is quite correct and I see no perversity in it at all. The compensation has been rightly awarded. There is no substance in the appeal. No substantial question of law is raised. What was urged before me was question of fact which cannot be gone into. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. JUDGE. Chute