JUDGMENT:- This appeal is preferred by the claimant, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs.100 lakh awarded by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P. No.261 of 1996. 2. The claimant, who was working h as a Hamali with Air Road Transport on (Assam) Company Limited, Autonagar, of Hyderabad, met with an accident involving is a lorry chasis, bearing number TR No.BHR a 16-9331, between 12-30 and 1-00 p.m. on 'is 4.1.1996, in which accident, he had received td multiple grievous injuries and as a result of which, he lost his vision and, consequently, became disabled completely. Though a sum of Rs.70,000/- was claimed originally, the claim petition has been permitted to be modified enhancing the claim to Rs.3-50 lakhs. 3. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor for the appellant, Sri Deepak Battacharjee for the 1st respondent and Sri T. Mahender Rao for the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant had pointed out that the appellant while proceeding on a bicycle from Autonagar to Indiranagar, on 4.1.1996 around 12.30 p.m. a lorry chasis, bearing number TR No.BHR 16-9331, came from behind at a high speed and dashed against the bicycle of the appellant and, thus, caused the accident. The appellant has suffered multiple grievous injuries on his head and after registering the complaint (FIR) in that regard as Crime No.3 of 1996-Ex.A.1, the police at Vanasthalipuram have referred the appellant to the Osmania General Hospital for treatment. EX.X.l is the case-sheet maintained by the said hospital between 4.1.1996 and 27.1.1996 the date of discharge of the appellant against medical advice. EX.AA is the C.T. Scan report of the brain taken out at Vijaya Diagnostic Centre, Hyderabad, which clearly disclosed the multiple fractures suffered by the appellant to his facial bones. The C.T. Scan has also revealed the Cerebral Contusion and Cerebral Congestion apart from the blood clots in his brain. EX.X.l-case-sheet has also disclosed that the patient has been referred for expert treatment to the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital at Hyderabad, which is yet another Government Hospital. The appellant had also filed the discharge ticket-Ex.A.3 and a bunch of medical bills as EX.A.5. He has also filed his salary certificate-Ex.A.6, vouching that he was paid a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. The appellant had also examined two other witnesses apart from himself. Dr. The appellant had also filed the discharge ticket-Ex.A.3 and a bunch of medical bills as EX.A.5. He has also filed his salary certificate-Ex.A.6, vouching that he was paid a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month. The appellant had also examined two other witnesses apart from himself. Dr. K.V.S. Prakash Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon and Neuro-Physician attached to the Osmania General Hospital, was examined as PW.3. PW.2 is an eyewitness to the accident. 5. Per contra, the respondents have got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3 on their side. Ex.B.1 is the vehicle dispatch memo issued by the Tata Electric Locomotive Company, Jemshedpur, evidencing the dispatch of the chasis in question by it in favour of the 1st respondent-owner. EX.B.2 is the insurance cover-note for its transit period between Vijayawada and Hyderabad. EX.B.3 is the copy of the insurance policy for the vehicle in question. EX.A.2 is the charge-sheet filed by the police after investigating into the crime alleging that the driver of the chasis has driven the said vehicle rashly and negligently and thus caused the accident in question. 6. The Claims Tribunal did not have any difficulty to record a finding that the accident in question has been caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the chasis by its driver and that the appellant had not contributed, in any manner, to the said accident. It had rightly found fault with the respondents in not examining the driver of the chasis, at least, in support of their plea that the appellant had contributed to the accident. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are correct and there is no material on record to 'suggest anything contra thereto. 7. However, the Tribunal did not believe the salary certificate~Ex.A.6 produced by the appellant in support of the claim that the appellant was paid salary at Rs.2,500/- per month. The appellant had not bothered to examine anyone from the side of his employer to vouch for the correctness of the contents of EX.A.6. Consequently, the method of approximation has been adopted by the Tribunal and it had worked out that the income of the appellant to be Rs.I,200/- per month. The appellant had not bothered to examine anyone from the side of his employer to vouch for the correctness of the contents of EX.A.6. Consequently, the method of approximation has been adopted by the Tribunal and it had worked out that the income of the appellant to be Rs.I,200/- per month. The approach of the Tribunal in this regard is also fair and reasonable, inasmuch as, in the absence of any other credible material, such as, returns filed by the employer before any statutory agencies, such as, the EPF Organisation or contributions to the ESI Corporation or any other returns evidencing the payment of wages to the appellant at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month, it is reasonable to assume that a Hamali, like the appellant, would have been earning Rs.1,200/- per month, in and around the year 1996. 8. However, what baffles me is the assessment made by the Tribunal of the disability suffered by the appellant. The Tribunal had noted Exs.AA, A.5 and X.l apart from the deposition of PW.3, who is a qualified and competent specialist attached to the Osmania General Hospital. Ex.xl un-mistakably discloses the gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant, wholly due to the impact on his head in the accident. The appellant has suffered multiple fractures to his facial bones and there are also multiple clots. Though he has responded very well to the treatment and, thus, could survive, nonetheless, in spite of expert treatment received by him from the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital also, he could not gain his vision. PW.3 has clearly diagnosed that the vision in the left eye of the appellant is completely lost. Insofar as the right eye is concerned, the range of vision has been assessed to be in the order of 10 to 30%. Thus, in the opinion of PW.3, the appellant had suffered a permanent disability to his vision. Therefore, the assessment of disability made at the rate of 30% by the Tribunal is grossly erroneous. If one were to look at schedule-I appended to the Workmens Compensation Act, for securing guidance in the matter of assessment of the Jisability, it becomes clear that loss of vision to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential, the percentage of disability in the form of earning capacity is regarded as 100%. In contrast, where loss of vision in one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eyeball and the other eye being normal, the Act tends to recognize the disability at 30%. Perhaps, the Tribunal adopted this percentage for assessing the degree of disability without any regard being had to the reported damage suffered to the other eye as well. In the instant case, the loss of vision in the other eye is also as high as 70 to 80%. Thus the disability suffered by the appellant in that regard could be assessed as total, if not confinable, at 70%. 9. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards the component of pain and suffering and Rs.12,000/- towards medicines and other diagnostic expenditure involved. The learned Tribunal has answered Rs.3,600 representing three months wages towards loss of past earnings, since the claim petition has been lodged in April, 1996. This far, the amount of compensation awarded appears to be fair and reasonable. Because of the thorough under assessment of the disability suffered by the appellant at 30% instead of 70%, he has been awarded compensation of only Rs.69,1201-. Therefore, the compensation should have been awarded at Rs.2,00,0001-, considering the extent of disability and the fact that he was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident. Totally, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.100 lakh rounding of, all the components of compensation awarded by it. Since, the assessment of disability of 30%, made by the Tribunal, is erroneous, the compensation liable to be awarded to the appellant has got to be enhanced by a further sum of Rs.100 lakh. The amount of compensation now ordered shall carry interest at the rate of 6%. The additional amount of compensation now ordered, shall be deposited by the respondents with the Tribunal, which, in turn, will order the same to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit with any of the Nationlised Banks in favour of the appellant for a minimum period of three years, while enabling the appellant to draw the interest accrued thereon once in a year. After the lock-in period, it is open for the appellant to withdraw the money. This method is resorted to ensure that the additional compensation amount, now ordered to be paid, will serve the purpose of sustenance of the appellant to lead an honourable life. 10. After the lock-in period, it is open for the appellant to withdraw the money. This method is resorted to ensure that the additional compensation amount, now ordered to be paid, will serve the purpose of sustenance of the appellant to lead an honourable life. 10. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.