S. B. Wad ( 1 ) THIS is a most unfortunate appeal tiled on behalf of Uma Shankar son of Sarup Chand, who suffered serious injuries on 29. 6. 1973 caused by car No. DHA 4265, insured with respondent No. 4. As a result of the injury the appellant got fracture on the right femur (the thigh bone) and crushing of the left foot metatarsal (small bone of the foot ). He was removed to Irwin Hospital, where he remained as indoor patient till 11. 7. 1973. He was then admitted as indoor patient in A. I. I. M. S. , where he remained till 17. 8. 1973. As the appellant was only six years old his father Sarup Chand was appointed by the Tribunal as the next friend and guardian for the 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 2. 7. 1979. After the dismissal of the application Sarup Chand somehow tiled the appeal in this court, but again stopped taking any interest in the appeal. ( 2 ) AN application was made by the advocate for the appellant, Uma Shankar on 9. 12. 1980, wherein it was pointed out that 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 Bihari Lal, the real uncle of the appellant, should be appointed as the next friend in place of Sarup Chand. This court, thereafter, removed Sarup Chand and appointed Bihari Lal as the next friend. Even this next friend did not pursue the appeal and, therefore, the court appointed Mr. D. R. Bhatia, Assistant Registrar (now Deputy Registrar) in this court, as the guardian and next friend. ( 3 ) IN the written statement filed 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 saying that the other allegations regarding treatment, injuries, etc. are denied. are denied. This is no denial in the eyes of law and, therefore, cannot be considered. ( 4 ) ONE way of dealing with this appeal was to send back the matter to the Tribunal, permitting the appellant to lead the 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 that case to the Tribunal, because it will restart the whole chain of litigation. I will, therefore, proceed on the basis of the amendment made in the Motor Vehicles Act on 1. 10. 1982, fixing the minimum liability of the insurance company, which is called no fault liability. As on 1. 10. 1982, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 7,500. 00 by way of compensation. He will further be entitled to 6 per cent simple interest from 1. 10. 1982 till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed with costs. ( 5 ) THE insurance company shall draw up a cheque in the name 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.