of 2012 aggrieved by the finding of NCDRC which states that they had not taken due care in the 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘PGI’ 2treatment and as such are liable for payment of the compensation and cost as aforesaid. 5. The other appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.5526 of 2012 has been filed by the complainants. The complainants in the appeal have not claimed any enhancement though upon a reading of the contents, it is implicit that they are not satisfied with the compensation awarded and that the same is inadequate. The main prayer in appeal is only to grant the special leave to petition against the judgment of the NCDRC but with no other prayer. The relief claimed in the appeal by the complainants has been drafted in a very casual and improper manner with no sense of responsibility. We deprecate the manner in which this appeal has been filed, but in the ends of justice, proceed to consider it on merits along with the tagged appeal. 6. The complainants are father and son. The son was a