JUDGMENT Heard submissions at the bar. 2. This appeal was directed to be heard finally after its registration pursuant to the order passed by this court dated 12/9/2013. 3. It appears that the judgment and award dated 2/9/2009 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Application (WCA No. 48/C/19/2007) is under challenge. 4. One Mr. Sharif Basheer Shaikh, who was engaged by Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. M/s. Enterprising Enterprise Engineer and Contract at Borivali, Mumbai 400 092, at its worksite at Dry Dock (Indira Dock) of Mumbai Port Trust to break old track for replacement on 11/11/2005. At the work site, he received a very serious injury as one iron piece broken from Chisel entered through left eye of the unfortunate Mr. Sharif and workman became semi-unconscious. He was taken to St. George Hospital, Mumbai. It was found that iron piece had entered to the extent of brain area which resulted in lot of complications for the workman and he was advised to undergo medical treatment at private hospital as well. Therefore, the employer got him admitted in Harkisondas Nurottamdas Hospital on 5/12/2006, for sometime. The injured was operated on 6/12/2006 for removal of iron piece but he lost his left eye vision and started getting frequent fits and also bleeding while sneezing. He could not do any work as he lost his vision and also because of frequent fits for which he had to take precautionary medicines. 5. It is contended that he was engaged for monthly wages of Rs. 4500/- and at the time of the accident he was aged about 32 years. 6. It is not in dispute that Opposite Party No. 1 employer had obtained insurance of its employees under insurance policy covering all the risk and liability to pay compensation to the workman under the Act. The applicant injured workman had lost his earning capacity and was required continuing medical treatment. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent pointed out that employer had stopped according medical treatment to the workman which is noted by the learned Commissioner while recording the finding in the impugned judgment at paragraph 19. In the result, for want of financial assistance and continuous medicines, workman, who could not afford medicinal cost, succumbed to the injuries as consequence. He died on 14/3/2007. 8. Legal heirs of unfortunate workman have claimed compensation which was granted in the sum of Rs. In the result, for want of financial assistance and continuous medicines, workman, who could not afford medicinal cost, succumbed to the injuries as consequence. He died on 14/3/2007. 8. Legal heirs of unfortunate workman have claimed compensation which was granted in the sum of Rs. 4,07,700/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. The expiry of one month from the date of death of workman i.e. 14/3/2007. 9. After having seen the record, as also hearing submissions at the bar, considering the age of the deceased workman that he was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and the calculation of the compensation payable taking the basis of monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-, more so when the fact was not disputed by the employer, compensation payable in the sum of 50% of the monthly salary i.e. Rs. 4000/- which comes to Rs. 2000/- multiplied by relevant factor 201.66 as mentioned in Schedule IV of the Act, the same is calculated as Rs. 4,07,700/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances, therefore, and the nature of injuries as also pains and sufferings which unfortunate workman had to endure until he died consequently. As also the injury to the one eye which was not only limited to the eye but also extending to the brain area, I think the award was right compensation as payable under the Act. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned award. 11. Hence appeal dismissed with costs. 12. The amount deposited in this court be transferred to the learned Commissioner for adjustment accordingly. 13. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, civil application No. 352 of 2010, does not survive and is disposed of as dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.