Judgment :- Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Heard Shri Saral Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri I.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. Employees State Insurance Corporation has challenged the order dated 27.1.2001 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur Nagar in appeal No. 244 of 1993 (Kamal Ahamad v. Employees State Insurance Corporation) whereby the Employee Insurance Court has determined the permanent partial disability of the respondent to the extent of 10%. The respondent was an employee of the Elgin Mill and was insured with the Employees State Insurance Corporation. He suffered injury in his left eye while on duty on 6.1.1990. The Medical Board rejected the claim of the respondent on 25.7.1991 whereupon the respondent preferred an appeal before the Employees Insurance Court, which has been partly allowed by the impugned order. 3. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appeal of the respondent before the Employees Insurance Court was barred by time. The order of the Medical Board was passed on 25.7.1991 whereas the appeal was preferred on 25.5.1993. The limitation for filing the appeal is only three months under Rule 20 B of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules. 1950. 4. I have considered the above submission and have perused the above rules. Rule 20 B of the Rules provides for filing the appeal to the Employees Insurance Court within three months from the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating the limitation for filing the appeal the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board is most relevant and important. The appellant has not given the said date of the communication of the decision of the Medical Board. There is nothing on record to established as to when the decision of the Medical Board dated 25.7.1991 was communicated to the respondent. The limitation for filing the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court runs from the date of communication of the decision of the Medical Board and not from the actual date of the order of the Medical Board. Therefore, the submission that the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court was beyond the limitation is without substance. Moreover, it appears that no such issue of limitation was raised by the appellant before the Employees Insurance Court. Therefore, the submission that the appeal before the Employees Insurance Court was beyond the limitation is without substance. Moreover, it appears that no such issue of limitation was raised by the appellant before the Employees Insurance Court. The Employees Insurance Court has considered the appeal on merits. Once the appeal was considered and decided on merits without going into the question of limitation, the presumption is that no such point was raised by the appellant and had been abandoned and given up by the appellant. 5. The next submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the loss in vision suffered by the respondent in one of the eyes is not on account of the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment but is due to age factor. Undisputedly. the respondent has suffered injury in his left eye while on duty. It is also not in dispute that he is unable to see from the said eye beyond a distance of one metre and as such his vision has been permanently reduced. The loss of vision of one eye has been listed as in injury deemed to result in permanent partial disablement under the 2nd Schedule of the Act. The respondent was treated at the Employees State Insurance Hospital in Pandu Nagar, Kanpur and was referred by it for further treatment in Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur. One of the reports of the eyes specialists of Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital, Kanpur certifies that the vision of the respondent in the right eye is only to the extent of 6/18 and in the injured left eye to the extent of 6/60. Another specialists of the same hospital has similarly certified the reduction of vision of the respondent and has further certified that the reduction of the vision of the injured left eye is due to the injuries only. On the basis of the aforesaid material on record the Employees Insurance Court has determined the permanent partial disability of the respondent extent 10%. I do not find any error in recording the above finding. Therefore, the submission that the loss of vision is due to age is also not tenable. No other point has been raised before me and no substantial question of law is involved. 6. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.