Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. Respondent K.L. Sharma was employed as E.M.P.A. by the Managing Director, Haryana Dairy Development Co-operafive Federation Ltd. hereinafter referred to.as appellant Corporation on 14.8.1977. A year and four months later, while he was proceeding on the bi-cycle from Begumpur Khotola to Gurgaon after visiting the said village, he fell in a ditch as it was dark all around. In the process, he received an injury on his right eye. Claiming that he was a workman and the injury received by him arose, during and in the course of his employment, he filed an application for grant of compensation before learned Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, which was allowed on 31.5:1984 and he was granted a sum of Rs. 12,936/- as compensation, Rs. 6,468/- under Section 4 of the Act as compensation for default, along with 6% interest on the original amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 12,936/-since the date of the accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claim application had been filed by respondent No. 1 after an expiry of more than 3 years from the date of the accident, i.e. on 3.3.1982. No evidence has been led by him to show that he was employed the appellant-Corporation or that the accident in question had taken place during and in the course of employment. It has also been submitted that even if the rate of 30% of the loss of earning capacity and, not at the rate of 40%. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has supported the order passed by the learned Commissioner and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the accident had taken place on 19.12.1978 and the claim application was filed on 3.3.1982. Learned Commissioner found sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the claim-application after the expiry of the prescribed period. No material is available on the file from which it could be established that the plea set up by the claimant was neither genuine or bona fide. 6. It has been admitted by the Corporation in its written reply filed before the learned Commissioner that at the relevant time the claimant was employed with the Corporation as E.M.P.A. at Gurgaon. At the time when he filed the Claim application, the claimant was posted as Assistant with the Corporation. 6. It has been admitted by the Corporation in its written reply filed before the learned Commissioner that at the relevant time the claimant was employed with the Corporation as E.M.P.A. at Gurgaon. At the time when he filed the Claim application, the claimant was posted as Assistant with the Corporation. As regards the contention on behalf of the appellant regarding the accident taken place not during the course or in connection with the employment, it was the case of the claimant-respondent that he proceeded for evening Visit to village Begumpur Khotola on 19.12.1978 on a bicycle and while he was on his way back to Gurgaon, he fell into a ditch, as it was a dark night. No material has been placed on record by the appellant that the claimant was not required to Visit Begumpur Khotola in connection with his job. Moreover, it has been admitted by the Corporation in its written reply that the claimant was drawing Rs. 30/- per month as cycle allowance. All this established that the accident in which the claimant received injury occurred during the course and in connection with the employment. 7. Coming to the compensation part, item No. 25 in part II under Schedule Il to the Act gives the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 40% in case, there is loss of one eye, the other being normal whereas under item No. 26, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is taken at 30% when there is loss of vision of one eye only. Dr. inderpreet Singh AW-2 who was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon stated in his exarnination-in-chief that as per the report of the Eye Surgeon, right eye of the injured had come out and for that reason, the claimant was referred to Safdarjang Hospital. Due to the same, the claimant had lost vision of one eye, whereas the other eye remained normal. It cannot be said that it was only loss of vision of right eye in the case of the claimant and therefore, he was entitled to receive oniy 30% of the loss of the earning capacity. As his right eye was noticed by the Eye Surgeon to have come out although repaired, thereafter, in Safdarjang Hospital, he was entitled to receive compensation to the tune of 40% of loss of his earning capacity. 8. As his right eye was noticed by the Eye Surgeon to have come out although repaired, thereafter, in Safdarjang Hospital, he was entitled to receive compensation to the tune of 40% of loss of his earning capacity. 8. In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed