JUDGMENT/ORDER : S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the respondent no.6. Respondents no.1 to 5 though duly served have remained absent. 2. Appellant is original respondent no.3, respondents no.1 to 4 are original claimants, respondent no.5 is driver whereas respondent no.6 is owner of the vehicle in question. 3. Claimants have preferred M.A.C.P. No.212 of 2001 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kutch at Bhuj under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 3,93,500/-, because of accidental death of Ranchodbhai Sava Chad. It is contended in such application that when deceased - victim was proceeding from Laliyana to Chandrodi in vehicle No.GJ-12 V-7666 along-with other passengers while in employment of opponent no.2 was driving the said vehicle which dashed with on coming truck and thereby, victim sustained serious injuries and succumbed. Therefore, it is contended that death of the victim was because of negligence of drivers of both the truck and vehicle in which he was traveling. The tribunal has after considering the rival submissions, by impugned judgment and award dated 09.12.2004, awarded an amount of Rs. 1,53,500/- only with 9% interest. 4. However, being aggrieved by such award, insurance company of the vehicle wherein deceased victim was traveling has preferred this appeal and contending that insurance company is not liable at all to indemnify the insured, thereby, to pay compensation to the claimants because vehicle is a goods vehicle and therefore, if victim was traveling in goods vehicle without any reason or purpose permissible under the Law, then insurance company may not be held responsible or liable to indemnify the owner because there is specific breach of policy condition. 5. Therefore, we have to examine the Record and Proceedings to find out the correct position that may emerge from the record which may be summarized as under :- (1) Claim petition is preferred under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act. Thereby, claimant does not have to plea or prove the negligence of driver of any vehicle and thereby, driver, owner and insurer of vehicles which are involved in the accident are liable to pay compensation to the claimant, more particularly, when victim was 3rd party and not concerned with cause of incident. Thereby, claimant does not have to plea or prove the negligence of driver of any vehicle and thereby, driver, owner and insurer of vehicles which are involved in the accident are liable to pay compensation to the claimant, more particularly, when victim was 3rd party and not concerned with cause of incident. (2) Though opponent no.1 driver has filed written statement and pleaded that he was not negligent at all, the discussion in above paragraph makes the situation clear. (3) FIR of the incident is at Exh. 33 wherein number of vehicles in which victim was traveling is specifically mentioned. (4) Inquest panchnama confirms the death of the victim. (5) Certificate of insurance is also produced on record at Mark 17/3 wherein except confirmation that vehicle No.GJ 12 V 7666 is owned by the opponent no.2 and insured by opponent no.3, no further details is disclosed so as to confirm that whether policy is limited or comprehensive with additional coverage on additional risk. In any case, non production of original or office copy of full policy document would result into adverse inference to be drawn against insurance company so as to believe that insurance policy is covering all comprehensive risk, hence insurance company would have certainly produced full document of policy on record to prove that there is breach of particular condition. (6) Appellant herein has filed their written statement at Mark 14/B, unfortunately, it is simple two pages reply with general denial about pleadings of the petitioner that they were unauthorized passengers in rickshaw, however, as aforesaid in absence of policy document such pleading alone would not prove that which condition of the policy stands breach, more particularly in absence of any cogent or reliable evidence to prove such breach. (7) Claimant's deposition is Mark 24/C, there is not a single line of cross examination so as to confirm that how and why victim was traveling in particular vehicle and therefore, version of petitioner remains uncontrovated. There is no evidence to confirm any breach of policy condition. (8) Petitioner has also produced on record documentary evidence to prove the holdings of amount and earning activities of the deceased at Exh.34 to 39 so as to confirm that deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. (9) None of the appellant has bothered to led any evidence before the Tribunal. (8) Petitioner has also produced on record documentary evidence to prove the holdings of amount and earning activities of the deceased at Exh.34 to 39 so as to confirm that deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. (9) None of the appellant has bothered to led any evidence before the Tribunal. (10) Therefore, when there was no issue raised before the Tribunal regarding liability of the insurance policy, now all of sudden insurance company has came forward with a case that they are not liable to pay compensation because vehicle involved in the incident was goods vehicle and victim was not authorized to travel in such goods vehicle. 6. In support of his claim, learned advocate for the appellant is relying upon the decision judgment dated 13.07.2005 passed by Division Bench in First Appeal No.3354 of 2000 in the case of National Insurance Company V/s. Rasilaben Shnatilal Yadav. Relying upon such judgment, it is contended that when claimant has came forward with the case that their vehicle was hit by some unknown vehicle which could not be traced, then this is a case of 'hit and run' and claimants are not entitled for compensation from the driver, owner and insurer vehicle in which they are traveling, with due respect, there is no substance in the decision, even if, it is by Division Bench, because basic principal for right to pay compensation is quite and simple under the Motor Vehicles Act, which confirms that claimants are entitled to pay compensation for injury or death arising out of use of motor vehicle. In the present case it is quite, clear and certain that petitioner was injured when he was traveling in the vehicle insured by opponent, therefore, when claim petition is under Section 163 A of M.V. Act, only scrutiny has to verify that whether there was involvement of any vehicle or not. Because right to pay compensation arises due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. Therefore, there is no reason or substance to rely upon such decision when statue and decisions by Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear. 7. Because right to pay compensation arises due to accident arising out of use of motor vehicle. Therefore, there is no reason or substance to rely upon such decision when statue and decisions by Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant is also relying upon the decision in the case of The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company V/s. Aminbhai Pirmohamad Master and Others, (1986) GLH 463 wherein Division Bench has held that when owner of the motor vehicle is not joined as a party, award can not be passed against insurance company in absence of owner and when such plea was allowed to raise for first time in appeal. Therefore, submitting that since issue regarding liability of insurance company is law point only, though insurance company may not have taken stand before the tribunal, it may be permitted to take such contention first time in appeal. Unfortunately, I do not find any substance in such submission for simple reason that firstly plea regarding breach of policy condition is already taken in written submission by the appellant but appellant has failed to prove such breach by adducing proper cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, appellant has to thank itself for being negligent in proceedings before tribunal by not proving their case properly but only because they wants to prove their case now at appellate stage, even if they are permitted to raise such contention at appellate stage, without any evidence so as to hold by the appellate Court that insurance company is not liable it cannot be held so only because they so pleaded. 8. As against that learned advocate for the respondent is relying upon the following citations :- (1) Order dated 15.09.2015 in First Appeal No.2932 of 2007 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pancham Dahya Dangar (2) Judgment dated 05.05.2009 in First Appeal No.2928 of 2007 between Oriental Insurance CO. Ltd. V/s. Gunwantra Mularajsinh Jadeja (3) In the case of Fahim Ahmed and Ors. V/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., (2014) AIR SC 2187. (4) In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Hansaben Bhanubhai Juvadariya, (2009) 5 GLR 3904 (5) In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Mayorkumar Rajubhai (Decd.) Thourgh L.Rs. Bhagwatiben Rajubhai, (2010) 3 GLR 2578 (6) In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited V/s. Keshubhai Keshvbhai Keshwala, (2012) 1 TAC 799 9. (4) In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Hansaben Bhanubhai Juvadariya, (2009) 5 GLR 3904 (5) In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Mayorkumar Rajubhai (Decd.) Thourgh L.Rs. Bhagwatiben Rajubhai, (2010) 3 GLR 2578 (6) In the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited V/s. Keshubhai Keshvbhai Keshwala, (2012) 1 TAC 799 9. The sum and substance of the such decisions are to the effect that if particular plea and contention was not raised before the tribunal, such contention cannot be raised for first time in appeal. 10. However, irrespective of all of such citations, the fact is quite clear and certain, in as much as application for compensation is under Section 163 A and there was no roll of the claimant in the incident and that insurance company has failed to prove any breach of condition before tribunal by adducing proper evidence, therefore, now in absence of evidence, it cannot be said that there is breach policy condition, more particularly, when full document of policy is also not placed on record either before tribunal or in this appeal. 11. Therefore, there is no substance in this appeal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.