S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.

(1) THE appellant lost his left eye and made a claim as having lost his complete vision in that eye but medically it was assessed that loss of vision was only 80%.

(2) THE Workmens Compensation Court on an application being made to it by the appellant assessed the compensation payable to him as 100% under Schedule I, Part I at Item No. 4. On an appeal to the High Court the compensation, which was fixed at 100% was reduced to 30% relying upon the provisions under Item No. 26 of Part-11 of the Schedule I of the Act.

(3) THE contention putforth before this Court is that the reduction made by the High i Court is improper. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another, AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 (1) SCC 289 : 1976-I-LLJ-235 wherein the case of amputation of left arm from the elbow causing total disablement to perform the work of Carpenter was discussed and contended in the present case that there is a loss of one eye and the earning capacity of the appellant has been reduced from what he was capable of earning at the time of the accident, as a resul