FA/356920/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3569 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI: ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= VINODBHAI BHAILALBHAI - Appellant(s) Versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR E S I C - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SHAILESH C SHARMA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MAYUR S BAROT for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in E.S.I. 2nd Appeal No.6 of 2006 whereby, the said appeal was partly allowed by enhancing the disability of the appellant FA/356920/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT to 7%. 2. The facts in brief are that on 12.11.2001 the appellant herein sustained an injury on his left eye during the course of employment. The Medical Board, constituted under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948 assessed the disability at 0% on the basis that his vision in both the eyes was normal. 2.1 Against the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal being Appeal (M.A.T.) No.47 of 2004. The said appeal was disposed by assessing the disability at 5%. Being dissatisfied the said order, the appellant preferred second appeal before the E.S.I. Court, Ahmedabad being E.S.I. 2nd Appeal No.6 of 2006. The said appeal came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment and order whereby, the percentage of disability was enhanced by another 2% thereby, making the total disability at 7%. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. From the record, it transpires that the Medical Appeal Tribunal has assessed the percentage of disability of the appellant at 5% on the basis that his vision in the left eye was 6/24. It appears that there is no fixed formula for assessing the disability. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the assessment made by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. FA/356920/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 4. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*