As per case facts, the claimant, a bus driver, suffered total vision loss in his left eye due to a motor vehicle accident. He sought compensation, and the MACT partly ... allowed the claim. Aggrieved by inadequate compensation and the finding of only 30% disability instead of 100% functional disability as a driver, the claimant appealed. Separately, the Insurance Company appealed, disputing liability and challenging the compensation quantum. The question arose whether the MACT's findings regarding negligence, entitlement, and quantification of compensation were sustainable. Finally, the Court ruled that a driver's 30% visual disability should be considered 100% functional disability, allowing the claimant's appeal and enhancing compensation. The Insurance Company's appeal was dismissed.