Judgment 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 5th July, 1995 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No. 41/1990, whereby the appellant along with other non-applicants were held liable jointly and severally to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 19,500/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realization. 2. Facts in brief are that, on or about 16.1.1990 at 1.30 p.m., the claimant aged about 21 years, an agricultural labourer was travelling from Sarul to Talegaon Dashasar, Dist. Amravati by a heavy goods vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. MCI 1043 insured with the appellant during the validity period from 17.2.1989 to 16.02.1990. The truck was owned by Pramod Babulal (Non-applicant No.2) and was proceeding from Amravati via Talegaon and was loaded with metal. The Driver had stopped it near Kharda Fata and upon request, allowed the claimant to travel towards Talegaon. The non-applicant no.1 who drove the truck negligently and speedily, while attempting to overtake a bicycle lost control and turned turtle. The claimant who was in rear portion of the truck sustained injuries on his head, chest and backside. He also sustained fracture to 12th vertebra. The claimant was taken to Irwin Hospital at Amravati and was an indoor patient for about 15 days and, thereafter also, the claimant underwent medical treatment under Dr. Phadke. Since the claimant sustained fracture, he cannot work as before the accident. Dr. Phadke, in support of the claim issued medical certificate Exh. 43 and deposed that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% and after the accident, he is unable to lift weights and unable to work in bent condition and to stand up for a long period, with no chances of further recovery. For non-applicants in the Claim Petition, Driver-Pramod Babulal Sahu (Non-applicant no.1) deposed that four persons had requested him to allow them to travel in the truck to Talegaon. His version that the passengers boarded and travelled without his knowledge seems to be an apocryphal version and, therefore, utter falsity. It is not normally possible to believe that Driver of the Truck would not know who is travelling in his truck, particularly when they had requested him. His version that the passengers boarded and travelled without his knowledge seems to be an apocryphal version and, therefore, utter falsity. It is not normally possible to believe that Driver of the Truck would not know who is travelling in his truck, particularly when they had requested him. Owner of the offending truck Shri Vinod Babulal Sahu was also examined (NA W2) to bring on record that his real brother Pramod was Driver of the Truck at the time of accident. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant criticized the impugned judgment and award on the ground that the insurer ought not to have been held liable. He relied upon the following rulings in support of his submissions: (i) NewIndia Assurance Co. vs. Asharani and others: 2003 ACJ 1; (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Devi Reddy Konda Reddy : 2003 AIR SCW 573 (iii) National Insurance Co. vs. Ajit Kumar : 2003 AIR SCW 4120. 4. It is not in dispute that insurer had already deposited the compensation of Rs. 19,500/- which has been withdrawn by the claimant. 5. In Asharani's case (supra) provision of Section 147(1) prior to its amendment in 1994 was under consideration of the Apex Court. Section 149(2) of the 1988 Act enables the insurer to raise defence that the vehicle was used for a purpose which was not allowed by permit under which the vehicle was used. The Legislature, as was noted by the Apex Court, wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 making it compulsory for the Insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorized representative either when such person die or suffers permanent disablement. It is also made clear that New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satpalsingh : AIR 2000 SC 235 was not correctly decided. 6. Learned counsel for appellant then relied upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Devi Reddy Konda Reddy (supra) to submit that insurer is not liable to satisfy the award for any passenger traveling in “goods carriage” vehicle. 7. Lastly, reliance is placed upon ruling in National Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Ajit Kumar (supra) to submit that carrying of passengers is not contemplated in “goods carriage” vehicle as contemplated under 1988 Act. 8. 7. Lastly, reliance is placed upon ruling in National Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Ajit Kumar (supra) to submit that carrying of passengers is not contemplated in “goods carriage” vehicle as contemplated under 1988 Act. 8. The contention that appellant Insurer is not liable to pay the compensation ought to have been proved before the Claims Tribunal by leading proper evidence. There was no evidence produced on record on behalf of the Insurer before the Tribunal. If such evidence is led or produced by the Insurer-company, then claimant as well as owner and Driver of the Motor Vehicle concerned can get opportunity to meet and counter the evidence, if led. The burden of proof is upon the insurer to establish that the insured is guilty of violating the Insurance policy. The Insurer who alleges breach of policy must lead cogent evidence that the insured is guilty of negligence or want of reasonable care to comply and abide by policy conditions. Wilful infringement or violation of policy by the insured must be brought on record by the Insurer to avoid liability. 9. In the present case, the evidence on record consisted of deposition of the claimant (AW1); Dr. Ajit Vasant Phadke, treating Doctor (AW 2) for applicant and for the non-applicant's Driver of the motor vehicle Pramod Babulal Sahu (NA W2). The appellant (NA 3) did not examine any witness. In the course of cross-examination on behalf of the non-applicant no.3 also, we do not find suggestions as to defence which is now raised in the appeal that insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The cross-examination was limited to elicit admission from the Driver that the owner used to allow to take the truck at his risk and that the owner was informed about the accident while Vinod, owner of the truck, was not at all cross-examined by the non-applicant no.3. While owner deposed that he never permitted the Driver to take passengers in the truck. An Advocate representing the insurer must exhibit abundant caution and cannot remain careless or negligent while evidence is led at the trial as insurance companies do possess public money to be expended properly according to law. 10. While owner deposed that he never permitted the Driver to take passengers in the truck. An Advocate representing the insurer must exhibit abundant caution and cannot remain careless or negligent while evidence is led at the trial as insurance companies do possess public money to be expended properly according to law. 10. No fault can be found with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as it was bound to consider only those contentions which were raised before it, except where the Tribunal is statutorily duty bound to consider other contentions though not put forth before it. The appellant-Insurer ought to have remained vigilant or alert at the time when parties went to trial before the Tribunal. Mixed questions of fact and law are required to be decided before the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, where opposite party can also avail of an opportunity to meet such contentions in evidence. 11. In the present case since the impugned award amount has already been satisfied by the insurer-company, it can recover the amount paid to the claimant from the responsible Driver or owner of the offending motor vehicle; as the case may be; by filing an execution application before the Tribunal and not by a separate civil suit. 12. For the reasons stated above, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and award. Hence appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.