JUDGMENT : B. MANOHAR, J. 1. Appellant is the claimant. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fastening liability on the second respondent to compensate the claimant filed this appeal, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 made in MVC No. 4729/2009 by the MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short). 2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that, on 06.05.2009, at about 1.30 p.m, while she was proceeding in an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-04/A-6179 as a passenger on Bangalore Tumkur Road, near RMC yard, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said auto-rickshaw, it dashed against the roadside tree in front of Golden Grand Apartment, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Shridi Sai Hospital, Bengaluru. The claimant claims that she has spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Prior to the accident, she was working as a coolie and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. In view of the injuries sustained, she has become permanently disabled to do the work. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. The insurance company defended the case by filing written statement and contended that the injured is a gratuitous passenger in a passenger auto, she is none other than the mother of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. Hence, she is not entitled for the compensation. Though the second respondent served with notice, he has not participated in the trial. 4. After trial, the Tribunal held that due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of the auto-rickshaw, the accident occurred, claimant is entitled for the compensation. In the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of 4th and 5th metatarsal bones of right hand was and crush injury to the ring finger of left hand. During the course of treatment, the middle finger of the right hand was amputated. She has submitted the medical bills for Rs. 29,606.73/-. However, she has not examined the doctor to assess the disability. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 29,610/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards diet food, conveyance and nourishment charges. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 69,610/-, which was rounded off to Rs. 70,000/-. 5. She has submitted the medical bills for Rs. 29,606.73/-. However, she has not examined the doctor to assess the disability. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 29,610/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards diet food, conveyance and nourishment charges. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 69,610/-, which was rounded off to Rs. 70,000/-. 5. With regard to the liability is concerned, the Tribunal held that the claimant was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in a passenger auto-rickshaw but she was not a fare paid passenger and hence, the insurance policy is not covered to such passenger. Further, driver of the auto-rickshaw was also not having valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the liability was fastened on the second respondent to compensate the claimant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri. Prakash. H.C, the advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri. M.S. Sriram, the advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence. 7. The occurrence of the accident, injury sustained by the claimant is not disputed. The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to the quantum of compensation and liability to compensate the claimant. 8. The case of the claimant is that on 06.05.2009 while she was proceeding in a auto-rickshaw on Bengaluru-Tumkur Road, near RMC yard, due to rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw it was dashed against the roadside tree in front of Golden Grand Apartment and she sustained grievous injuries. She filed a claim petition for seeking compensation. The insurance company in the written statement contended that the claimant is none other than the mother of the driver of the auto-rickshaw, she is a gratuitous passenger and the insurance package policy does not cover the risk of gratuitous passenger and also contended that the driver of the auto-rickshaw was not having a valid and effective driving licence, which is contrary to the evidence on record. The insurance company has not taken any defence in their written statement that driver of the auto-rickshaw was not having valid and effective driving licence, the RTO was not examined to that effect. The insurance company has not taken any defence in their written statement that driver of the auto-rickshaw was not having valid and effective driving licence, the RTO was not examined to that effect. With regard to coverage is concerned, the insurance policy which was marked as EX.R1 clearly discloses that it is the policy covering the passenger carrying commercial vehicle and package policy also covers inmates of the auto-rickshaw. Even though the claimant who is the mother of the driver of the auto-rickshaw, she is covered by the insurance policy. The finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the owner of the auto-rickshaw is contrary to the law. Hence, said portion of the judgment has to be set aside and the liability has to be fastened on the first respondent. 9. In the accident, the claimant has sustained injuries to the two fingers of the right hand and crush injury to the left hand. During the course of treatment, tip of one of the fingers has been amputated. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future loss of income only on the ground that the doctor has not been examined. The wound certificate and Ex.P11, the photographs of the injured clearly disclose that the amputation of one of the fingers and the claimant is entitled for compensation on the said head. Taking into consideration the injury sustained and suffering undergone, I am of the opinion that, it is appropriate to award a global compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in addition to Rs. 70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% per annum. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 10. Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 15.03.2010 passed in MVC.No. 4729/2009 by the MACT, Bengaluru is modified. The claimant is entitled for global compensation of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in addition to Rs. 70,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 11. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, fastening liability on the second respondent is set aside. The liability is fastened on the insurance company to compensate the claimant. 12. Four weeks time is granted for the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant.