JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J 1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.10.2002 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, in the MACT Case No. 142 of 1999 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,01,400 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filling of claim petition till the date of realization and directing the insurance company to satisfy the same. 2. We have Mr. George Raju learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company. None appears for the respondent No. 1 though Dr. C.V.L. Auva had entered appearance on his behalf. None appears for the respondent No. 2 also in spite of service of notice. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company has confined his argument to the point that the vehicle being a goods carrying vehicle the insurance company is not liable to satisfy any award passed by the learned tribunal in respect of the death or bodily injury of a gratuitous passenger traveling in such goods carrying vehicle, as the policy of insurance issued does not cover the risk of such gratuitous passenger and a Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act fasten the liability on the insurance in respect of the death or bodily injury of the owner or his representative carried in appellant, there is no evidence on record to the effect that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger. 4. In the instant case the factum of accident, the age and monthly income of the deceased as well as the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was a goods carrying vehicle, is not in dispute. No permission under Section 170 of the MV Act has also been obtained by the insurance company appellant to challenge the quantum of compensation, which they have not rightly challenged. The learned Counsel for the insurance company has also stated that no appeal by the owner of the vehicle has been filed against the award impugned in the present appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the insurance company has also stated that no appeal by the owner of the vehicle has been filed against the award impugned in the present appeal. 5. It appears from the claim petition as well as the deposition of the claimant that the claim was filed by him for the death of his daughter who was the sole earning member of the family and who was running a shop, died in a motor accident involving the vehicle in question bearing Registration No. ZRA-106, which is a goods carrying vehicle, belonging to the respondents No. 2(owner), while she was traveling in the said vehicle. The insurance company in the written statement filed has not taken up the plea that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in respect of the said vehicle and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. During the cross examination except in putting a suggestion in that regard, nothing was asked to the claimant in that respect. The insurance company has also failed to adduce any evidence to show that he deceased was a gratuitous passenger in respect of the vehicle in question. 6. The plea that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in respect the said goods carrying vehicle having not been taken by the insurance company in the written statement filed before the learned tribunal, the said plea cannot be allowed to be raised before this insurance company and hence the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award passed by the learned tribunal, cannot be accepted, and therefore, rejected. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No cost. 8. The insurance company is directed to deposit to deposit the awarded amount, less the amount already paid/deposited, before the learned tribunal within a period of 4(four) months from today along with the interest. Appeal dismissed