JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and/or award dated 5.8.2011 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (2nd Court), West Bengal in Claim Case No. 63 of 2005 at the instance of the employer. By the said award, the employer was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,13,494/- to the respondent injured as compensation together with interest @ 12% per annum from the expiry of one month from the date of accident till deposit. 2. While passing the said award, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant was an employee under the appellant and he, in course of his employment, suffered injury on his both eyes resulting total loss of vision. The learned Commissioner, by relying upon the Medical Certificate issued by the doctor, came to the conclusion that due to such accident he sustained 100% disability and as such it will be just and proper to assess the loss of his earning capacity as 100%. 3. Such findings of the Commissioner are under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the employer. 4. Let us examine as to how far the learned Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned award in the facts of the instant case. 5. Here is the case where the workman stated in his claim-petition that on 18.3.2003 while he was performing his duty, he met with an accident and he received injury in his both eyes in the said accident. He further stated that subsequently he was treated in the Medical College and Hospital but his eyesight could not be recovered. He further claimed that at the time of such accident, he was aged about 45 years and he used to get a sum of Rs. 2,100/- per month on account of his wages. He thus claimed a sum of rupees three lakh and odd on account of compensation for his 100% loss of earning capacity. 6. The employer/appellant contested the said claim petition of the employee by filing written statement. In the said written statement, occurrence of the said accident and loss of vision of the workman in his both eyes due to such accident were evasively denied. The employer also disputed the claimant's claim regarding his age and wages. He denied his liability to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. In the said written statement, occurrence of the said accident and loss of vision of the workman in his both eyes due to such accident were evasively denied. The employer also disputed the claimant's claim regarding his age and wages. He denied his liability to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. The workman examined himself in the said proceeding to prove his case. The doctor who treated him for the injury which he received in the said accident in his both eyes, was also examined as the employee's witness in the said proceeding. Though the employee was cross-examined by the employer's counsel but the doctor was not cross-examined by the employer's counsel. 8. In course of evidence, the workman produced the medical certificate and other prescription and medical papers relating to his treatment and operation and the discharge certificate which were all exhibited in the said proceeding. The other witness, viz., the doctor who treated him also proved his medical certificate wherein the loss of total vision of the workman was certified. 9. Mr. R.N. Majumdar, learned advocate appearing for the employer/appellant, in course of his submission, tried to impress upon us with reference to the medical papers exhibited in the said proceeding that the retina of the workman concerned in his left eye was detached prior to the accident and he had to be operated for such detachment of retina in his left eye in 1987 i.e. long before the occurrence of the said accident on 18.3.2003. 10. He further submits that when the workman lost his eyesight in one of his eyes prior to occurrence of the said accident, it cannot be held that the total loss of vision of the said employee was caused due to the said accident. He thus submits that even if it is found that the workman lost his vision in his right eye due to such accident, then the percentage of his disablement due to such accident should have been assessed with reference to the loss which he sustained in the said accident in his right eye only. 11. Mr. Majumdar ultimately concludes by submitting that the loss of vision should have been estimated at 50% and compensation should have been awarded for 50% of his loss of vision. 12. In reply to such submission of Mr. R.N. Majumdar, Mr. 11. Mr. Majumdar ultimately concludes by submitting that the loss of vision should have been estimated at 50% and compensation should have been awarded for 50% of his loss of vision. 12. In reply to such submission of Mr. R.N. Majumdar, Mr. Soumya Majumdar, learned advocate appearing for the workman/respondent submits that the appeal itself is not maintainable u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. He further submits that the medical papers exhibited in the said proceeding will show that the workman had undergone an operation for his retina detachment in his left eye in 1987. He submits that the workman recovered his eyesight in his left eye after he had undergone operation in his left eye. He submits that there was nothing on record to show that even after operation, his eyesight in the left eye was not restored in 1987. 13. He further contends that even there was no complaint about the working capability of the employee from the side of the employer prior to occurrence of the accident on 18.3.2003 This shows that the working capability of the workman was not lost even after his retina detachment in his left eye in 1987. 14. He further submits that the factum of receiving injury on both eyes of the workman in the said accident remains uncontroverted as the employer did not adduce any evidence in this case. As such according to him the learned Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that the workman concerned lost his total vision in his both eyes due to such accident by relying upon the medical certificate issued by the doctor. 15. Let us now consider the substance of the contention of the learned advocates of the respective parties in the light of the pleadings and evidence on record. 16. We have examined the pleadings of the respective parties. We have seen that though the workman made a specific and positive averment in his claim-petition that in course of his employment on 18.3.2003 he met with an accident and received injuries in both his eyes resulting his total loss of vision, but such contention of the workman was not denied by the employer specifically. 17. The written statement filed by the employer shows that the employer evasively denied the occurrence of the said accident. 17. The written statement filed by the employer shows that the employer evasively denied the occurrence of the said accident. Even the claim of the workman regarding receiving injury in his both eyes in the said accident and his total loss of vision on account of such injury remains uncontroverted. 18. The treatment which the workman received in Medical College both as an outdoor and indoor patient on account of such injury received by him in the said accident also remains uncontroverted. There was no effective cross-examination of the workman from the side of the employer either with regard to the occurrence of such accident or with regard to the injury which he received in his both eyes in the said accident. The employer neither examined himself nor examined any other witness to deny the occurrence of such accident and/or injury which the workman sustained in the said accident. 19. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that an accident occurred on 18.3.2003 in course of the employment of the workman and he lost his total vision in his both eyes in the said accident. 20. This conclusion we arrive at by relying upon both the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence of the workman and his other witness viz. the Doctor, The doctor was not even cross-examined by the employer's counsel even though he stated in his evidence that he examined the said workman and found him unfit for any work. He certified disablement of the workman to the extent of 100%. The medical papers exhibited in the said proceeding shows that he was treated as an outdoor patient in Medical College, Kolkata on 21.3.2003 and thereafter he was admitted in the hospital on 28.4.2003 and remained there under the treatment till 21.5.2003. The discharge certificate and the medical papers of the workman show that his vision could not be restored even after operation. 21. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that in course of employment, the workman received injury on 18.3.2003 and as a result of such injury, he lost his total vision in his both eyes and thereby he lost his total earning capacity. 22. Even assuming that the contention of Mr. 22. Even assuming that the contention of Mr. R.N. Majumdar to the effect that the extent of loss of vision of the workman due to such accident is 50% as he lost his vision in right eye only in the said accident is correct, still then we hold that the loss of his earning capacity due to such accident was 100%. As such even if it is found that the workman lost his eyesight due to his retina detachment in his left eye prior to the accident and his vision was not restored even after operation in 1987 still then he did not lose his earning capacity due to such retina detachment in his left eye as he continued to work and earn even after detachment of his retina in the left eye and his earning capacity ultimately was lost totally when he lost his vision in the right eye due to such accident. As such, we hold that the workman is entitled to claim 100% compensation. 23. Payment of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- by the appellant/employer to the respondent/workman, be it on account of compensation or on account of compassionate ground, leads us to hold that occurrence of the accident is admitted by the employer/appellant. 24. Though the appellant/employer disputed the age and income of the workman but he did not produce his register and other documents to show that he used to pay a lesser amount to the workman/respondent on account of his wages and his age was recorded in his register otherwise. The employer is the custodian of such document, still then he did not produce it; rather he withheld the production of such best piece of evidence. As such, we have no hesitation to draw presumption adversely against the employer as to his claim regarding income and age of the workman. 25. As such, we hold that the respondent succeeded in proving his age and his income on account of his wages at the time of such accident in the instant case. 26. We also do not find any infirmity in the computation of compensation payable by the employer to the workman in the impugned award. 27. We also find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal thus deserves no merit for consideration. The appeal thus stands dismissed on contest. 26. We also do not find any infirmity in the computation of compensation payable by the employer to the workman in the impugned award. 27. We also find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal thus deserves no merit for consideration. The appeal thus stands dismissed on contest. The judgment and/or award passed by the learned Commissioner in the claim-petition is affirmed. 28. We are informed that the principal awarded amount has already been deposited by the employer before the Commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation. We thus direct the Commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation to disburse the said amount in favour of the respondent/workman within one month subject to compliance of necessary formalities by the workman in this regard. 29. The employer/appellant is given a month's time for depositing the interest part payable by him to the workman/respondent in terms of the impugned award before the Tribunal. In default, the respondent/workman is given liberty to realise the same through the process of execution. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.