THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.872 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The appellant was employed as a Driver with the 1st respondent, to work on a lorry bearing No.AP-21-T-1579. That vehicle was initially owned by the 2nd respondent, and insured with the 3rd respondent. On 24-10-1993, the appellant was proceeding on duty; and it is stated that the vehicle was taken into a garage, at Kurnool, for repairs, since there was a crack in the joint. He pleaded that during the course of repair, an iron piece came and hit his left eye, seriously affecting his vision. He was initially treated by Dr.Balakrishna Murthy, and later on, by Dr.L.V.Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. He is said to have spent Rs.10,000/-, for treatment. The appellant filed W.C.No.148 of 1994 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Kurnool Region (for short ‘the Commissioner’), against the respondents. Through order dated 26-02-1996, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.39,741/-, as compensation. The appellant seeks enhancement thereof. Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. To prove his case, the appellant deposed as PW-1 and examined PWs 2 and 3. He also filed Exs.A-1 to A-6. The case was contested by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company alone, and on their behalf, RW-1 was examined. The occurrence of the incident, in which the appellant sustained injury to the eye; was not disputed. At any rate, it was proved by cogent oral and documentary evidence. The next question was, about the quantum of compensation. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, prescribes a separate formula, wherein the age, wages and extent of disability are to be taken into account. The appellant himself filed Ex.A-6, a medical certificate, issued by the competent authority, which discloses that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40%. Without doubting the veracity thereof, the Commissioner took the disability suffered by the appellant at 40%, and awarded compensation of Rs.39,741/-, by applying the correct figures of age and wages. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability suffered by his client is more, this Court does not find any basis to accept the same. There cannot be a better proof, than the one, filed by the appellant himself. In case he doubted the correctness of Ex.A-6, he ought to have taken steps to get it corrected, before instituting the case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-11-2011. KO