JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muddebihal in MVC No. 115/2010. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and award would contend that the Tribunal has considered the permanent disability to the extent of 10% as against the evidence led by PW3 - the doctor who had categorically stated that the injured had the disability of the right eye to the extent of 40% - 45%. It is also contended that the compensation awarded under the other heads is also on a lower side. Accordingly, he seeks for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing in or the insurer supporting the order passed by the Tribunal would contend that the Tribunal having appreciated the material evidence available on record has awarded just and proper compensation which cannot be found fault with. 5. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is noticed that the Tribunal has determined the permanent disability of right eye of the injured to the extent of 10%. Ex.P. 12 - the disability certificate issued by the doctor who has deposed as PW3 has categorically stated that the injured had permanent disability of right eye to the extent of 40% - 45%. It is also noticed that the disability certificate reveals that the right eye of the injured has become practically a blind eye. No material evidence is placed by the insurer to discard this evidence. Loss of vision of one eye without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal would fall under SI.No.26 of Part-II of Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 wherein the percentage of loss of earning capacity would be at 30%. Applying the same, loss of future income works out to Rs.3,56,000/-. 6. Even under the heading of loss of comfort, compensation awarded at Rs.3000/- is a paltry sum. It is very well established principle that in the life time of a person proper eye sight is an important aspect. There is no dispute as regards the injured having lost his vision in the right eye in the accident. Such being the case, the compensation awarded under the loss of comfort requires to be modified to Rs.30,000/-. It is very well established principle that in the life time of a person proper eye sight is an important aspect. There is no dispute as regards the injured having lost his vision in the right eye in the accident. Such being the case, the compensation awarded under the loss of comfort requires to be modified to Rs.30,000/-. 7. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads remains undisturbed. Accordingly, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.4,41,400/-. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the MACT, Muddebihal is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 1,55,200/- to Rs.4,41,400/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation deducting interest for the delayed period of 284 days.