JUDGMENT
S.B. Wad, J.
1. This is a most unfortunate appeal filed on behalf of Shri Uma Shankar.son of shri Sarup Chand,who suffered serious injuries on June 29,1973,caused by car No.DHA 4265,insured with respondent No.4.As a result of the injury,the appellant sustained a fracture of the right femur (the right bone).He was removed to Irwin Hospital,where he remained as an indoor patient till July 11,1973.
2. He was then admitted as an indoor patient in A.I.I.M.S.,where he remained till August 17,1973.As the appellant was only six years old,his father,Sarup Chand,was appointed by the Tribunal as the next friend and gurdian for purposes of the case.The said guardian did not take any interest in the prosecution of the application for compensation before the Tribunal in spite of a number of opportunities.Nothing was done by the next friend in the case.The Tribunal had,therefore,to dismiss the claim application on July 2,1979.After the dismissal of the application,Sarup Chand somehow field the appeal in this court,but again stopped taking any interest in the appeal.
3. An application was made by the advocate for the appellant,uma Shankar.on December 9,1980,wherein it was pointed out that Shri Sarup chand generally remained drunk and completely neglected the house and was not doing any work to earn for the family livelihood.it was prayed that Shri bihari lal,an uncle of the appellant,should be appointed as the next friend in place of Ssrup chand and appointed Bihari Lal as the next friend.Even this next friend didi not pursue the appeal and,therefore,the court appointed Shri D.R.bhatia,Assistant Registrar (now Deputy Registrar)in this court,as the guardian and next friend.
4. In the written statement field on behalf of the insurance company the injuries received by the appellant were not specifically denied,nor the period for which the appellant was hospitalised,first in the Irwin Hospital and then A.I.I.M.S.There was only a general denial by a saying that the other allegation regarding treatment injuries,etc.,are denied.This is no denial in the eye of law and,therefore cannot be considered.
5. One way of dealing with this appeal was to send back matter to the Tribunal,permitting the appellant to lead evidence and allowing the Tribunal to decide the application for compensation.however,14 years have already elapsed.The appellant has now become a major and I do not think any useful purpose will be served by remanding the case to the.Tribunal,because it will restart the whole chain of litigation.I wiil,therefore,proceed on the basis of the amendment made in the Motor Vehicles Act on October 1,1982,fixing the minimum liability of the insurance company,which is called “no fault liability”.as on october 1,1982,therefore,the appellant would be entitled to Rs.7,500 by way of compensation,He will further be entitled to 6 per cent.simplse interest from October 1,1982,till the date of payment.the appeal is allowed with costs.
6. The insurance company shall draw up a cheque in the mane of the appellant and deposit the same with the Registrar within two months from today.the Registrar shall issue notice to the appellant and hand over the cheque to him.