JUDGMENT:- Challenge in this First Appeal is to the award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna restricted to question of liability imposed on appellant Insurance Company. 2. Brief background facts leading to the appeal are that Respondent-claimant was travelling in a Matador goods vehicle No.MWP8796 on 3-6-1994 for attending marriage of his relative. The Matador vehicle skidded on way near Karjat Phata, located on Jalna-Beed Road, and therefore it turned turtle. The vehicle was toppled thereafter and hence, some passengers, including the Respondent, were injured. He sustained fracture of a survical bone, resulting into paraplegia. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle. 3. The appellant as well other opponents failed to file their written statement. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.l,63,000/- alongwith the proportionate costs and interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a., excluding the NFL amount of Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal held that all the three Respondents, including the present appellant, were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The appellant impugns the findings regarding liability fixed by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant was admittedly travelling in the goods vehicle as a member of marriage party and the vehicle was being used for transportation of passengers though, it is registered and insured as a goods vehicle. 4. Mr. Upadhye, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that though no pleadings are filed by the insurer yet, the claimant himself made it clear that he was travelling as a passenger in order to attend marriage of his relative. He would submit that when the claimant himself made the factual position clear, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. He seeks to rely on "Smt. Mallawwa etc. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others" (1999 AIR SCW 255). Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Jadhavar, would submit that breach of policy ought to be duly proved and mere vague statement of the claimant should not be taken as a gospel truth. He seeks to rely on "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and others" 2004(2) Maharashtra Law Journal 372 : [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 238] and also on "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others" (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 297 : [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 251]. 5. He seeks to rely on "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and others" 2004(2) Maharashtra Law Journal 372 : [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 238] and also on "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others" (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 297 : [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 251]. 5. The crux of the problem is whether the appellant could be held liable to pay compensation when the admitted fact is that the claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle, without being owner of any transported goods and that the vehicle was being used for transportation of members of marriage party. 6. The accident occurred on 3-61994 i.e. prior to the amendment of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act No.54/1994. The amendment came into force on 14-11-1994. The Apex Court held in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and others", 2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 238 (supra) that the intention of the parliament could not have been that the words "any person" occurring in Section 147 would cover all persons who were travelling in a goods carriage in any capacity whatsoever. It is held that payment of the premium in view of the said amendment would cover only a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or otherwise. This authority does not help contention of the Respondent/claimant. On the other hand, it is manifest that the position even after the amendment has remained unchanged in so far as the risk pertaining to a passenger travelling in the goods vehicle, without being one with the goods transported, remains the same. In "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others" [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 251] (supra), the Apex Court held that the defence raised by the Insurance Company ought to be proved by it and the burden of proof is on the Insurance Company. 7. There cannot be any two opinions about the proposition that the appellant was required to prove that the conditions in the Insurance policy were breached. Still, however, when the fact situation is admitted by the claimant himself, then it will have to be said that the breach is duly proved. The admission by a party displaces the burden of proof is well settled principle. Still, however, when the fact situation is admitted by the claimant himself, then it will have to be said that the breach is duly proved. The admission by a party displaces the burden of proof is well settled principle. In the face of admitted position that the claimant was travelling as a member of marriage party, the Insurance Company was not required to prove anything else. The Tribunal observed that most of the cross-examination of the claimant related to breach of condition of policy. Even noticing such tenor of the cross-examination, the Tribunal failed to consider the legal implications thereof. Under the circumstances, it will have to be said that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation amount to the Respondent. For, the vehicle was being used against terms of the Insurance policy and though it was a goods vehicle yet, the claimant was travelling therein as a member of marriage party. It is unfortunate, no doubt that the claimant sustained serious injuries and has been rendered paraplegic. The legal liability of the owner to pay compensation remains intact. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the final order in the impugned award is modified to the extent that instead of the words "Respondent Nos.1 to 3" the words "Respondent Nos.1 and 2" be substituted and that the appellant will not be liable to pay the amount of compensation. If the appellant has already paid any compensation to the Respondent, then it may be permissible to recover the same in the execution proceedings of the same award from the owner. The parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. Appeal allowed.