The loss of an eye, even if it was already blind, is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

( 1 ) THE appellant, Sukhai, was and is still employed as a cop-winder in the Jute Mill of the respondent jute company. On 26-12-1951, he was at his usual work when some chinese clay balls, attached to the winding-rod, broke loose and flying at a great speed, struck him in his left eye, causing a bleeding injury. He was immediately taken to the Chief Medical Officer of the Mills, who gave him first aid and then sent him to the Chinsurah Hospital for further treatment There the eyeball was removed on 3-1-1952. The workman was discharged on the llth of January following, but it appears that he had to attend hospital [or further attention on certain subsequent dates as well. Ultimately, he resumed his duties on 5-2-1952.

( 2 ) THE appellant, as I have already stated, is still in the employment of the respondent company. He is earning his usual wages and, according to his own evidence, he can do his usual work.

( 3 ) ON 4-6-1952, the appellant made an application for compensation on account of the injury to his eye. He described the injury as 'loss of vision of the left eye (eye ball removed)' and asked for a compensation of Rs. 1,260, subsequently amended to Rs. 882, on the basis that the injury was a scheduled injury and, therefore, the compensation was to be assessed on the basis of a thirty per Cent. loss" of the earning capacity. He stated his monthly wages to be Rs. 80 to Rs. 100 per month.

( 4 ) THE respondent company admitted' that the appellant was a workman in its employ, that an accident had happened to him in the manner alleged and that it had- also caused an injury to the appellant's left eye. It was, however, contended that, nevertheless, the appellant was not entitled to any compensation, because the eye affected by the accident was already blind and, therefore, by the injury arising out of the accident and caused to the eye, the appellant's earning capacity had in no way been affected.

( 5 ) THE learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation accepted the respondent's case that at the time of the accident, the appellant was already blind of his left eye. In that view, he held that the appellant was not entitled to any compensation on the basis of a permanent partial disablement, but was only entitled to a half-monthly payment on account of his temporary disability during the days on which he had been unable to attend to his duties. The amount awarded by the Commissioner as half-monthly compensation was Rs. 50.

( 6 ) IN proof of its contention that the appellant was already blind of his left eye at the time of the accident, the respondent company relied on two documents, namely, Ex. A (1) which is the service-record in the name of the appellant, and Ex. A, his servicecard prepared on the basis of Ex. A (1 ). It also relied on depositions of one Debendra Nath Bose, a clerk of the Labour Office of the respondent who had written and signed Ex. A (1) and one S. R. Mehta, the Labour Officer, who also had signed the same exhibit. The appellant entered the service of the respondent company in 1942, but it appears that the system of having a service-record and preparing service-cards was introduced only in 1947. The entry in Ex, A (1), against the column 'identification Marks', is 'blind by left eye' and the entry in Ex. A against the same heading is the same. Debendra Nath Bose who wrote Ex. A (1) stated that" when the appellant came to him. He found white spot on the pupillary area of the left eye and asked the appellant if he could see by that eye to which the appellant answered in the negative. S. R. Mehta deposed to the same effect. The Chief Medical Officer of the respondent company, Dr. P. K. Bose, to whom the appellant was taken after the accident, stated that he had found a big leucoma in the appellant's left eye which was obstructing the pupillary area. He, however, admitted that he had not recorded the location of the leucoma or the site of the injury and that he was not an eye-specialis