JUDGMENT:- By this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara dated 27.9.1990 in Claim Petition No.58/1987 granting compensation to the tune ofRs.15,000/ - to the claimant/respondent no.1 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the application till its realization. 2. Claimant Amarkant was travelling in a matador along with deceased Asaram and others, when the matador dashed on a Babul tree on the highway near village Kharbi. Asaram died on the spot. The respondent/claimant received serious injuries. The widow of Asaram by name Tanabai and respondent Amarkant filed two separate claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara. The claims petitions filed by both claimants were partly allowed by the Tribunal. The judgment passed by the tribunal in the claim petition filed by Tanabai was challenged by the insurance company in First Appeal No.785/1991. This court, however, by judgment dated 18.12.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company. It is brought to the notice of this court that the grounds raised by the appellant/insurance company in the present first appeal are identical to the grounds raised by the appellant/insurance company in First Appeal No.785/1991. 3. Shri. Verma, the learned counsel holding for Shri. Sudame, counsel for appellant/ insurance company submitted that the respondent was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent in the accident. 4. A similar ground was raised by the Insurance Company in the First Appeal No.785/1991. 5. It is submitted by Shri. Parihar, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that the insurance company had not raised this plea in defence. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the insurance company has failed to produce the insurance policy/cover note on record to show that the vehicle was a goods vehicle and separate premium was not paid for the insurance of the passengers travelling in the matador. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this first appeal: A] Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to pay compensation on the Insurance Company? 2] What order? 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this first appeal: A] Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to pay compensation on the Insurance Company? 2] What order? It is necessary to note that it is not the case of the insurance company, in its written statement that the matador was a goods vehicle and was not insured for the passengers travelling in the same. It was stated in the written statement that no separate premium was paid towards insurance for the passengers travelling in the matador. It appears that the submission made by the insurance company, before this court and before the Tribunal at the time of argument, is an afterthought and was not based on the pleadings of the insurance company, or the evidence tendered by it before the Tribunal. It is necessary to note that the insurance company had not placed the copy of the policy or the cover note on record. Since the material document was not produced by the insurance company before the Tribunal, the submission on behalf of the appellant, cannot be, accepted. Hence for the aforesaid reasons and also for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 18.12.2009 in First Appeal No.785/1991, this first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.