THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1386 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) against the award, dated 31.03.2004, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-III, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.No.56 of 2002 filed by the first respondent-claimant, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment on 17.04.2002 while he was driving the lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 3130 from Hyderabad to Kolkata via Adilabad District and when he reached near Gudithoor turning point, he lost control over the vehicle and it fell down on the left side of the road, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The case was contested by the appellant-insurer. Through the order under appeal, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.3,71,810/- to the claimant payable by the appellant and the second respondent, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which, the claimant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of the accident. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1, who filed caveat. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though AW3-Doctor deposed that the claimant has double vision i.e., Diplopia, the Commissioner erred in adopting 100% loss of earning capacity to the claimant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the three doctors of the Special Medical Board have certified that the claimant is not fit for driving as he sustained Ophthalmological disability of diplopia, which means any object will see as two objects and therefore, the Commissioner has taken 100% loss of earning capacity to the claimant. 5. It is not in dispute as regards the injuries sustained by the claimant, Orthopedic physical disability at 25% under Ex.A10 and also the liability fastened on the appellant and the second respondent. The dispute is with regard to adopting 100% loss of earning capacity by the Commissioner. A.W.3, who is the Professor and Head of Ophthalmology Department, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad, has clearly and categorically stated that the claimant’s eyeball was pushed with limitation of movements and double vision, which cause confusion in vision and each object appears as two objects and he is not eligible for driving the vehicle and accordingly, he issued Ex.A9-disability certificate. Further, the doctors of the Special Medical Board of Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, have certified under Ex.C1 that the claimant is not eligible for driving and is totally disabled. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly assessed 100% loss of earning capacity to the claimant and awarded just and reasonable compensation by the award impugned, which need not be interfered with by this Court. 6. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.07.2010 sj