B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise against the award passed in MVC Nos. 25 and 26 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE respondent in both appeals has filed cross-objections for reduction of compensation and also challenged the negligence. ( 3 ) IN MVC No. 32 of 1988, the claimant was the rider of the scooter. The appellants in these appeals were travelling as pillion riders on the scooter on 19. 7. 87. At about 9. 00 a. m. the accident took place near mani on Mangalore-Bangalore National highway. While the driver of the scooter was going slowly on the left side of the road near the said spot, a K. S. R. T. C. bus bearing No. MEF 618 came from the opposite direction in a high speed on the wrong side driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter. As a result, all of them got injuries. ( 4 ) FOR the claimants, PWs 1 to 4 are examined and Exhs. P1 to P22 are marked. For the respondents, no witness is examined much less any document is marked. ( 5 ) AT the very outset, the contention of mr. Dabali, learned counsel for the respondent, in respect of negligence, is taken up for consideration. Even there is some delay in filing cross-objections in these appeals. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the award passed in MVC no. 32 of 1988. It is pertinent to note that all these MVC Nos. 25, 26 and 32 of 1988 arise out of the same accident. When the respondent has not chosen to prefer the appeal in MVC No. 32 of 1988, it goes without saying that the respondent has accepted the negligence. The respondent cannot afford to challenge negligence in some cases and keep quiet in some cases. When there is a common judgment, the respondent ought to have filed appeal against the award passed in MVC No. 32 of 1988 also. Hence in my opinion the contention of Mr. Dabali that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter also, cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) MR. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellants now canvassed that the compensation awarded is very meagre. On the other hand, Mr. Hence in my opinion the contention of Mr. Dabali that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter also, cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) MR. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellants now canvassed that the compensation awarded is very meagre. On the other hand, Mr. Dabali submits that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and it is liable to be reduced. In view of these submissions, I perused the judgment of the Tribunal. ( 7 ) LET us take first what compensation should be awarded in MVC No. 25 of 1988. The claimant is a minor girl aged about 11 years. Exh. P1 is the wound certificate which would show that she sustained the fracture of left femur and frontal parietal region. The claimant is examined as PW 1. These injuries are grievous in nature. In addition to these injuries, she also sustained other injuries. Exh. P2 is the case-sheet which would show that she was in the hospital from 19. 7. 1987 to 3. 9. 1987. Exh. P3 is the X-ray. It is observed by the Tribunal that no medical bills are produced. Mr. Mahesh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of the father of this minor child, namely, pw 2 has gone unchallenged in the cross- examination. However, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards pain and suffering on account of the injuries. Mr. Mahesh submitted that the injured was taken to the Government Venlock Hospital, mangalore. But unfortunately no doctor is examined. On the basis of the evidence on record, now it is to be seen what is the just and reasonable compensation. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that he spent Rs. 6,000 for the treatment of his daughter and has spent Rs. 15,000 for the treatment of his son. It is also on the record that the girl was in-patient from 19. 7. 1987 to 3. 9. 1987. Almost for more than one and half months she was in-patient. It is noted that the girl is of tender age. She got the fracture of left femur and frontal parietal region. If something had been very serious and severe, she could have suffered to the larger extent and these injuries certainly affect her future life. 9. 1987. Almost for more than one and half months she was in-patient. It is noted that the girl is of tender age. She got the fracture of left femur and frontal parietal region. If something had been very serious and severe, she could have suffered to the larger extent and these injuries certainly affect her future life. However, the doctor is not examined. Nevertheless there is no impediment to assess and award reasonable compensation since claimant sustained two fractures and other injuries and she has taken treatment for more than l'/2 months. Hence I am inclined to award a sum of Rs. 30,000 towards pain and suffering and for the loss of amenities in the life. It is in the evidence of pw 2 that he has spent Rs. 1,000 towards taxi charges for attending the hospital on four occasions. This is also awarded. He further stated that he has spent Rs. 6,000 towards medical expenses. This has gone unchallenged in cross-examination. There is no impediment to award this amount towards medical expenses. The girl was being attended by the parent for more than 1 /2 months. Naturally, he had incurred expenditure towards conveyance, boarding, lodging and other expenses. I am inclined to award a sum of Rs. 2,000 for that purpose. Hence the total compensation comes to Rs. 39,000. ( 8 ) THE story of the petitioner in MVC no. 26 of 1988 is very pathetic. He was tender aged boy attending the primary school. To his misfortune, after the accident, he has become deaf. He lost 100 per cent hearing power. Exhs. P9 and P10 are the certificate and X-ray of the claimant. Exh. P15 is the out-patient chit/card of nimhans. Exh. P16 is the prescription chits issued by Dr. Sathyasundar of Puttur. Exh. P17 is the certificate issued by Dr. Mallya and Exh. P19 is the audiogram report. ( 9 ) MR. Mahesh relied upon a decision in the case of Baldev Krishan v. Chander deep Jain, 1984 ACJ 163 (Pandh ). It is difficult to get the support from this decision to arrive at just and reasonable compensation in this case. The boy is studying in 8th standard in the physically handicapped school. Now there is 100 per cent deafness. He has lost all the pleasure in the world to hear good music, good dialogue and other aesthetic enjoyments in his life. The boy is studying in 8th standard in the physically handicapped school. Now there is 100 per cent deafness. He has lost all the pleasure in the world to hear good music, good dialogue and other aesthetic enjoyments in his life. Even if he gets married, he cannot talk with his wife. When he walks on the road, he always faces danger as he cannot hear the sounds of the vehicles plying on the road. In short, the petitioner has to suffer from innumerable impediments in his life. ( 10 ) WITH all this, the big question before us is what would be the reasonable compensation. In the absence of any specific injuries, I am inclined to look into the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation act just to know what is the normal loss of working capacity and the earning capacity. 100 per cent deafness is covered in schedule I, Part I, item 6 of this act. According to this Schedule, deafness means 100 per cent loss of earning capacity. If the boy is 16 years and if he suffers from this impediment, the factor that is to be applied is 228. 54. Even assuming that the boy at the age of 16 would be capable of earning only Rs. 1,000, even then the loss of earning capacity comes to rs. 2,28,540. But what is to be borne in mind is the uncertainties and contingencies in the life. The petitioner will not be totally disabled from taking up any other avocation. But he has lost one of the important sensitive organs. Now we have to strike the balance between these two things. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be adequately met with if a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is awarded for the loss of 100 per cent hearing of both ears inclusive of pain, suffering, enjoyment, loss of amenities and earning capacity. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 10,000 is awarded towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and other miscellaneous expenses. In all the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,10,000. Hence the following order: in the result, both appeals are allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 39,000 is awarded in MVC No. 25 of 1988 and rs. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 10,000 is awarded towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and other miscellaneous expenses. In all the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,10,000. Hence the following order: in the result, both appeals are allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 39,000 is awarded in MVC No. 25 of 1988 and rs. 1,10,000 is awarded in MVC No. 26 of 1988 with 9 per cent interest per annum and the proportionate costs from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .