DECISION ' The respondent, who was employed in the Railways, the appellants herein, as a blacksmith, met with an accident on 13-12-1977, arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in the loss of his right eye despite of prolonged treatment at the Railway Hospital, Jinnah Hospital, Karachi, and Cairn's Railway Hospital, Lahore. Notwithstanding the loss of his right eye a fitness certificate was issued in respect of the respondent on 22-3-1978 by the Railway Authorities suggesting that the respondent could resume his duties as blacksmith. The respondent, however, served a legal notice, dated 31-5-1978, upon the appellants to the effect that he was unable to see properly and hence if the Railway Administration insisted on his resuming duties any injury to his life, limb or organ would be the responsibility of the Railway Administration. It appears that in the meanwhile the respondent was treated at the Spencer's Eye Hospital, Karachi for cataract which had developed in his left eye. He was discharged from the said hospital on 9-5-1978, vide Discharge Card produced by the respondent before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, In consequence of this fresh development, due to which the respondent's vision in the left eye had been impaired, the Railway Administration reconsidered the issue of his fitness to perform the duties of a blacksmith and on the basis of the medical certificate, dated 5-8-1978, issued by the Divisional Medical Officer, Railways, directed that he was unfit to perform the duties of a blacksmith and accordingly offered him compensation on the basis of 30% loss of earning capacity as assessed by the Divisional Medical Officer. The respondent accepted this offer and was paid a sum of Rs, 6,000 as compensation by the Railway Administration. The respondent does not appear to have been satisfied with the amount of this compensation and accordingly preferred an application to the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation on the basis of 100% disability by reason of the fact that he had been rendered totally unfit to perform the duties of a blacksmith, in which job he was employed. The learned Commissioner, mainly on the basis of the fact that the Railway Doctors have themselves pronounced the respondent unfit for performing the duties of a blacksmith, allowed the claim of the respondent in full and has awarded him Rs, 14,000 as compensation. The Railway has assailed this order by way of appeal to this Tribunal.
2. It appears that the learned Commissioner, in awarding compensation to the respondent on the basis of 100% disability, has wholly misconceived the legal position. No doubt the respondent's vision in the right eye has been totally lost in consequence of the accident in which he was involved in the course of his employment with the appellants and that further the vision in his left eye has also been affected resulting in his being declared unfit for performing the duties of a blacksmith but in order that a workman should be entitled to 100% disability compensation due to loss of sight, such loss must be as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. If the damage to the respondent's left eye was directly or indirectly on account of the accident in which the respondent was involved on 31-7-1977, including damage to his right eye, the award of compensation by the learned Commissioner would have been based on a sound foundation. However, it appears that the damage to the respondent's left eye is wholly unconnected with the accident in which the respondent was involved on 31-7-1977. It has been categorically asserted by Dr. Abdul Salam Khan, who was examined by the respondent as his witness, that the injury in the right eye of the respondent had no sympathetic effect in his left eye and that the damage to his left eye was due to senile cataract on account of old age. The learned doctor further testified that no other doctor, who had examined the respondent, ever suggested that the disease or damage to the left eye of the respondent had been caused by or was on account of the injury to his right eye or was in any way connected with it. As such, the damage to the left eye of the respondent does not entitle him to any compensation, at least under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, nor can such damage be taken into consideration in computing the compensation to which he is entitled for the loss of vision in his right eye. The case of the respondent, thus, does not fall under Serial No, 4 of the First Category of injuries in the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act but under Serial No, 25 under the Heading "List of injuries deemed to result in permanent partial disability". The disability for the loss of one eye without complication is to be computed at 40%. The respondent, thus, is entitled to 40% compensation for loss of vision in his right eye which amounts to Rs, 8,000. In fairness to Mr. Alvi, the learned counsel for the appellants, he frankly conceded that the respondent was entitled to this amount under the law. I would, accordingly, direct that in lieu of the amount of Rs, 14,000 awarded as compensation to the respondent, he be paid Rs, 8,000 as compensation. From the said amount, the sum of Rs, 6,000 already paid to him by the Railway Administration should be deducted,