P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE insurer has filed this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 2 ) CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT No. 1 was the driver in respect of a truck bearing No. GGG 6040 belonging to present respondent no. 2. Alleging that he had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment on 6. 2. 1989, claim application was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, cuttack (in short, 'the Commissioner')which was numbered as W. C. Case No. 63 of 1990. ( 3 ) THE owner in his written statement while admitting about the employment and the injuries, disputed about the wages, age and the gravity of injuries sustained by the claimant. The insurer in its written statement denied generally the allegations made in the claim application and called upon the claimant to prove the allegations. ( 4 ) THE Commissioner on assessment of evidence on record found that the claimant was a workman under present respondent no. 2 and sustained the injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of employment. Considering the nature of injuries, the Commissioner assessed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of one hundred per cent and directed for payment of Rs. 98,530 as compensation. ( 5 ) IN this appeal, the only question raised by the appellant relates to the question of quantum of compensation payable. It is argued that the finding regarding loss of earning capacity cannot be accepted. Referring to the evidence on record, the commissioner has found that the claimant had practicaily lost his vision as a result of the accident and since the claimant was a driver, the loss of earning capacity was assessed at one hundred per cent. The doctors who had been examined on behalf of the claimant had clearly opined that the claimant would not be in a position to drive a vehicle and the possibility of improvement of vision by use of glasses was almost non-existent. Even the doctors examined on behalf of the insurance company had opined about the loss of vision. As such, it cannot be said that the assessment made by the Commissioner is perverse or baseless so as to warrant interference in this appeal. Even the doctors examined on behalf of the insurance company had opined about the loss of vision. As such, it cannot be said that the assessment made by the Commissioner is perverse or baseless so as to warrant interference in this appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that in the claim application it had not been specifically alleged that the vision of the claimant had been adversely affected by the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also claimed that in contemporaneous documents, there is no mention of eye injury. Such submission of the appellant does not appear to be correct. On perusal of the original petition, it is apparent that it had been indicated about the injuries to the eyes. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the copy served on the insurance company, the portion inserted in the original petition by hand relating to eye injury was non-existent. However, it does not appear that any question was asked to the claimant regarding absence of such specific plea. The bed-head ticket produced on behalf of the claimant also indicates about the existence of such injuries. Having regard to all these aspects and keeping in view the limited scope for interference in an appeal under section 30 of the Act, I do not see any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.