1. What is the true ambit and import of "total disablement" as contemplated under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? Does the loss of eyesight in one eye entitle the workman to claim compensation for total disablement? This is the primary issue that arises in this appeal. The matter has been placed before the Full Bench on a reference by the Division Bench. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.

2. The appellant was working as a driver with the first respondent. On March 28,1988 he was asked to take the car from Parur to Cannanore. He met with an accident and suffered injuries. One of the injuries resulted in the loss of vision in the left eye.

3. The appellant-workman filed a petition under S.22 before the Commissioner for compensation. He claimed that he was getting a salary of Rs.1,500/- per mensum. He had suffered disability of 45% on account of the injuries. He was 33 years of age. Thus, he claimed a lumpsum payment of Rs. 68,060.25. The employer and the insurer were impleaded as respondent Nos.1 and 2. The workman led evidence. After the evidence had been closed, he filed an application for amendment of the claim petition. He claimed to have suffered 100% disability and thus prayed for the award of Rs. 1,51,745/- by way of compensation.

4. The authority under the Act considered the matter. It found that according to medical evidence the claimant had suffered a permanent partial disability of 45%. The claim of 100% disability was not supported by any evidence. On this basis a compensation of Rs. 45,374/- was awarded.

5. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant has filed the present appeal.

6. When the matter was posted before a Division Bench for hearing, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the decision of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222) the appellant was entitled to compensation on the premises that he had suffered total disablement. The Bench noticed various decisions. Finding that there was some difference of opinion within the court itself the case was referred to a larger Bench.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. M.M. Saidu Muhammed, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as a result of the injury the appellant is unable to work as a driver. Thus, he has suffered total disablement. The competent authority had erred in awarding compensation on the basis that the disability was only 45%. On the other hand, Mr. K.T. Shyam Kumar has submitted that the compensation is relatable to the loss of earning capacity actually suffered by the claimant. In view of the plain language of the provisions, the compensation has to be determined with reference to the loss of earning capacity and not the job, which was being actually performed by the claimant at the time of the accident.

8. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the short question that arises for consideration is -

"Does the statute provide for the award of compensation on the basis of loss of earning capacity or with reference to the ability to do the work, which the claimant was actually doing at the time of the accident?"

9. A brief reference to the statutory provisions is necessary.

10. The Act was promulgated to provide for payment by certain classes of employers to their workmen by way of compensation for injury by accident. S.2 of the Act defines various expressions. The relevant provision is contained in Cl.(1). It reads as under: -

"2(1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement:

Provided that permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or from any combination of injuries specified in Part II thereof where the aggregate percentage of the loss of earning capacity,