petitioner at the age of 9 to 10 years must have had the necessity of a regular attendant throughout and even during the period of subsequent treatment as outpatient for three months, some attendants must have been accompanying him to the hospital and back. Apart from such expenses of attendants, the petitioner also must have suffered much expense towards travel, extra nourishment, medicines which were not supplied by the hospital and other incidental expenses, all of which must have accumulated to a significant figure keeping in view the prolonged treatment. Though there were no medical bills or receipts or vouchers or prescriptions to show the expenditure as opined by the Tribunal, still the ordinary and natural course of human events probablised that the petitioner’s parents must have spent considerably for the treatment of the petitioner throughout for all other incidental expenses. Apart from the same, 42% burn injuries on the body and admission in plastic surgery unit probablised the claim that subsequently the petitioner might have undergone plastic surgery on his face and notwithstanding any such treatment or surgery, the fact remains that the deformity in appearance of the petitioner would not have been totally erased, which physical deformity he should carry throughout his life. The petitioner ought to have been compensated separately for the medical expenses and other incidental expenses stated above, permanent disfigurement which he had suffered and loss of amenities of life, pain, suffering, discomfort, inconvenience and all other permissible heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In the absence of any specific evidence on these aspects and keeping in view the age of the petitioner, the extent of his injuries and suffering and all other relevant circumstances, grant of compensation of Rs.45,000/- in total would meet the necessity to grant just and adequate compensation to the
