1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.454 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, Adv., for respondent/State. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 10 th June, 2009 ... 1. Heard Mr.Pradeep Shahane and Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent, extensively. 2. The appellant employer has come with a case that the driver Balasaheb was not his regular driver and the injury sustained by the driver, to his eye, was not during the course of employment and, consequently, there is no responsibility, to meet with the loss suffered by the driver. 3) The contention of the appellant/employer is 2 difficult to digest as there is another employee who has supported Balasaheb contending that at the relevant time Balasaheb was engaged in stitching onion sacks and in the process Balasaheb suffered slip of needle which got inserted in his left eye. The claimant Balasaheb has been examined by three doctors and, ultimately, the Doctor, who carried necessary surgery and operation issued certificate Exh.U-13 on 12.3.2003 which certificate is in tune to Rule 255 I(3) read with 281(1)(5) of the Act. The evidence established that Balasaheb was admitted in the hospital for operation on 25.2.2003 and discharged on 12.3.2003, he was under constant treatment. The employee has lost vision of his left eye due to accident i.e. Insertion of the needle in the left eye. The certificate issued by the Medical Officer cannot be doubted. 4) The employee was 45 years old at the relevant time. He has suffered permanent loss of earning which the learned Judge has assessed at 40 per cent. I do not see that there is any perversity or illegality on the 3 part of the learned Judge in assessing the loss. It is a matter of record, the employee Balasaheb was a driver by profession and his regular pursuits have been arrested by such loss of vision. In the situation, the appeal challenging the award by the learned Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, dt.22.12.2008, lacks merit. The appeal with Civil Application is dismissed. No costs. (K.U.Chandiwal) Judge. agp/office/fa454-09