JUDGMENT

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. — This petition is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 15.09.2010 passed in M.F.A No.7863 of 2004 (MV).

2. While hearing the S.L.P. on 06.01.2012 notice was ordered on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the main special leave petition and Dasti service was also permitted. After the service of notice, it was reported that the respondents did not enter appearance. As there was no representation on behalf of the respondents, the record of Courts below was called for. There was delay of 323 days in filing this petition. As the respondents have not bothered to contest this petition, we heard learned counsel for the appellant both on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits. As we are satisfied with the reasons adduced in the application filed in support of the condonation of delay petition, the delay stands condoned.

3.Leave granted. .

4.We perused the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore dated 02.07.2004 passed in M.V.C. No.248 of 2002, original record as well as the Division Bench Judgment impugned in this appeal. There was no dispute about the accident that occurred on 25.10.2001 at about 3:30 p.m. on the 1st Main Road, 2nd Cross, Valmikhinagar, Mysore Road, Bangalore. In the said accident the appellant who was then aged eight years was hit by Hero Puch Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-09-J-4982 which belonged to the second respondent, by its rider. The manner in which the accident took place was vividly stated by P.W.1 who was none another than the father of the appellant himself and who was an eye witness to the accident. After the accident, the appellant was stated to have been admitted in Victoria Hospital and that he was treated as inpatient between 29.10.2001 to 10.11.2001 for a period of 12 days. The appellant suffered injuries in his right leg which was fractured coupled with lower third displacement, Plaster of Paris was applied to the right leg, which was removed after three months. The appellant was doing his third standard at that time and due to the accident, as per the evidence of P.W.2 the doctor, who attended on him and who also subsequently examined him on 14.01.2004 noticed the following physical impairments:

“1. Painful limp

2.Wasting & Weekness of muscles of right limb.

3.Tenderness right with joint line tenderness of right knee.

4. Terminal restrictions of joint movements of right knee by last, 20 degrees and total restriction of dorsiflexion of right ankle joint.

5. Shortening of 1 cm of right lower limb (compared to opposite limb)

He has assessed the disability to the extent of 16% to the whole body because of these accidental injuries.”

5.It was aiso in medical evidence that the appellant continued to take follow-up treatment subsequently. In support of the medical evidence, apart from the version of P.W.2 Doctor, Exhibit P-4 the copy of accident register maintained at Victoria Hospital, Exhibit P-5 the discharge summary, Exhibit P-6 the inpatient record, Exhibit P-7 the outpatient record and Exhibit P-8 the X-ray were all produced. P.W.2 subsequently stated that there was. a shortening of 1 cm of right lower limb as compared to the opposite limb.

6. Keeping the above factors in mind as there was no evidence placed on the side of respondents except the marking of the policy Exhibit R-1, the Tribunal held that the second respondent as the owner and the first respondent as the insurer were liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal computed the compensation payable under the following heads:

“For pain, agony, trauma, injury & suffering Rs.35,000/-

Medical expenses as per bills and other

Incidental charges like Conveyance,

special Diet, Attendant charges, nourishment etc Rs.12,000/-Loss of amenities in life Rs.30,000/-

Total Rs.77,000/-.

Thus the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 77,000/-.

7.Being