ORDER : Virender Singh, J. 1. Arguments heard finally. 2. Both these appeals are being decided by this common order as both are preferred against the common award passed in claim case Nos. 66/2002 and 67/2002 by Member, MACT, Sardarpur, District-Dhar arising out of the same accident occurred on 22.01.1998 at about 4 O'clock in the evening due to rash and negligent driving of the driver deceased Vikram of truck bearing registration No. GJ-7-X/1856 causing injuries to respondent No. 1 in both the appeals. 3. For the convenience, facts are being taken from appeal No. 2333/2006. According to the facts of the case, the claimants were in the business of manufacturing and selling of the ice-cream (Kulfi). On the date, time and place of the incident, they (claimants/respondent No. 1 of both the appeals) were going from Rajgarh to Godhara with their family members and servants. They were carrying Ice-cream trolleys and other material related to their ice-cream factory (Kulfi Karkhana). Deceased-Vikram was driving the truck. He drove the truck rashly and negligently. The truck turned turtle in a trench of about 200 feet deep. Respondents No. 1 of both the appeals (Sabir and Talib) with some other persons got injuries in their hands, legs, face, chest and other parts of the body. Sabir sustained fracture in nasal bone. Learned tribunal allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 20,000/- to the claimant/Sabir and Rs. 14,000/- to the claimant/Talib as compensation. Learned tribunal held both the respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and insurer of the truck liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 4. The appellant insurer has preferred both the appeals on the sole ground that at the time of the incident the claimants (respondent No. 1 herein) were travelling as the passengers in a goods vehicle, therefore, insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Others, 2003 ACJ 1 and The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jeevan Singh and Others in M.A. No. 1155/2002 decided on 18.05.2007 but these judgments are distinguishable on the facts with the present case and not helpful for the appellant. 6. I have gone through the record. 7. The insurance company has neither produced nor proved any insurance company or any condition thereof relating to such breach, as alleged in the present appeal. 6. I have gone through the record. 7. The insurance company has neither produced nor proved any insurance company or any condition thereof relating to such breach, as alleged in the present appeal. In the absence of such prove the insurance company cannot claim any exoneration from the liability. 8. Perusal of the record of learned tribunal it revealed that the Insurance Company did not raise such objection in it's written statements before the tribunal. No issues have been framed in this regard. Raising such arguments first time in the appeal is not permissible. 9. The objection was raised for the first time during the cross examination of (PW-1) Mohd. Talib and thereafter a suggestion was put before Sabir (PW-2) during his cross- examination in para 7 of the statement that one should not travel in a goods vehicle. Both the witnesses negative the suggestions put forth. Later, the appellant did not press this objection during examination or cross of Ashma (PW-3). The appellant did not produce any evidence to prove the fact. On the contrary, it has come in evidence that at the time of the accident, the claimants were travelling in the vehicle in connection with their business of making Kulfi, with material and other goods related to making and selling of Kulfi. Learned tribunal has discussed this evidence in para 27 of the award and has rightly concluded that the Insurance Company was responsible for liability occurred to the owner of the vehicle, as there was no dispute that at the time of the accident the vehicle was insured with the appellant. 10. It is settled law that when owner of the goods is travelling in the goods vehicle with his goods, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability of payment of amount of award. In this regard reliance may be placed on Ram Kumar vs. National Insurance Company, 2001 (6) Supreme 353 , Timariya vs. Devendra and Others, 2012 ACJ 250 MP, Kandhi @ Kanhaiyalal Sahu and Another vs. Govind Singh Dhruve and Another, 2004 (3) MPLJ 277 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shakuntla Devi, 2006 ACJ 2732, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2004 AIR SCW 212 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC). 11. Ltd. vs. Shakuntla Devi, 2006 ACJ 2732, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2004 AIR SCW 212 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC). 11. To fortify it's conclusion, learned tribunal has also observed that in another claim case No. 63/2008, arising out of the same accident, an award was passed on 06.02.2002 holding the insurance company liable and no documents had been produced before the learned Tribunal that the Insurance Company had filed any appeal against this award, therefore, in the present award a different view cannot be taken. This observation still holds ground, as the appellant has not rebutted this in the present appeal also. 12. Considering the aforesaid, the appeals are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. However, no order as to costs.