1. Aggrieved by the grant of compensation of only Rs. 25,000/- excluding NFL amount by the ld. Member of MACT, Udgir, Dist. Latur, in MACP No. 106/2002 (Old MACP No. 33/2000) by judgment dt. 30.09.2004, the original claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

2. As per the claim petition, the claimant was aged 33 years and was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month by doing work of cycle repairs. On 10.05.2000 at 07:30 p.m., he was proceeding from Lohara Pati towards eastern side of Udgir Latur road in a tipper bearing No. MH-12/TRT-146, permanent registration No. MH24/A-3567. Due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper of respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1, it was turtled and the right palm i.e. front part of right hand of the appellant/claimant was crushed under the tipper. The claimant suffered amputation from wrist. The FIR was registered at C.R. No. 53/2000 against the driver of the tipper at Udgir Rural Police Station. According to the claimant, he has sustained 100% disability and loss of income of Rs. 9,000/- per month. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 though duly served, remained absent. Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company admitted the accident but claimed that the claimant was unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The permanent disability and involvement of the offending vehicle was also disputed. The income of the claimant was disputed and it was specifically contested on the ground that the claimant was not entitled for compensation as he was unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle.

4. The claimant examined himself and relied on number of documents.

5. The learned Member, MACT, Latur, held that the claimant failed to prove that he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month by running a bicycle shop. He assumed his income at Rs. 1500/- and dependabe income at Rs. 1,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 12,000/- p.a. He calculated the loss of income at Rs. 1,92,000/-. He held that, he was unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle. The Member, however, held that the claimant was 50% negligent and he fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed. Though he had held the just and reasonable compensation at Rs. 1,92,000/-, reduced the said amount by 50% and assessed the liability at Rs. 50,000/- and made all the respondents liable and awarded Rs. 25,000/- excluding the NFL amount. Hence, this appeal.

6. Shri. C. D. Biradar, learned advocate for the appellant argued that as held in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the learned Member, MACT, Udgir ought to have held that the deceased was entitled for compensation as per the multiplier formula. He argued that, though physical disability was loss of part of the hand, since it was right hand, it was 100% functional disability. The ld. member has not properly assessed the compensation for injuries sustained by the claimant. Hence, the appeal should be allowed and the compensation should be enhanced.

7. Per contra, Shri. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 argued that, the claimant has failed to prove his income at Rs. 9,000/- per month as claimed by him. Besides, the vehicle was a goods vehicle and the claimant was gratuitous passenger and he was not traveling as a owner of goods. Therefore, relying on the apex court judgments, he argued that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. He submitted that, the claimant is not even third party and, therefore, there can be no order for pay and recover. He fairly submitted that, the Insurance Company has not preferred appeal and the Insurance Company would be liable to comply the judgment delivered by the trial Court.

8. The points for my determination with my findings thereon are as follows:

(i) Whether the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the owner? ...In the negati