JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the award passed by the FA No.1288/08. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.338/1995 dated 27-4-2007. 2. The ground of challenge is a breach of condition of the policy. The breach of condition in the present case is that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, but was used for carrying passengers. According to the Insurance Company, therefore, it has no liability to pay the compensation. It is then urged that the liability to pay first and get reimbursed thereafter as decided in case of Baljit Kaur will not apply in view of latter two Judgments of this Court. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the following Judgments in support of his contentions :- 1. (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 297, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others. 2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.)238, M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Baljit Kaur & Co. 2. 2005(2) Bom. C. R. 955, Suman Arjun Shegokar V. Prasad Gopalrao Chirkuri & others. 3. 2005 ACJ 721, National Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Bommithi Subhayamma & Others. 4. 2006(2) ALL MR 421 The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Vs. Sharada Tukarqm Koli & Ors. 5. 2006(6) ALL MR 90, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Bijalabai Marutin Dharange & Ors. 6. I(2006)ACC 300 (SC), Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki & Ors. 7. II(2006)ACC 681, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Lilabai & Ors. 8. (2007)5 Supreme Court Cases 428, Oriental Insurance Col Ltd. V. Meena Variyal and others. 9. 2007(7) SCALE, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Brij Mohan & Ors. 10. (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Laxmi Narain Dhut. FA No.1288/08. 11. 2008(5) ALL MR 757, M/s Traders Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. Smt. Sunanda wd/o Krishna Machivale & Ors. 12. 2008(5) Mh. L. J. 415, Sharad Yashwant Joshi and another v. Mohammed Yusuf Nasiruddin since deceased by his LRS Sayyad Paervez Mohammed Yusuf and others. 13. 2008 (1) All MR 78, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anubai Gopichand Thakare & Ors. 14. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1005, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another v. N. Raju Reddiar and another. 4. Though large number of Judgments are cited, Learned Advocate Mr. 13. 2008 (1) All MR 78, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anubai Gopichand Thakare & Ors. 14. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1005, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another v. N. Raju Reddiar and another. 4. Though large number of Judgments are cited, Learned Advocate Mr. A.H. Patil emphasised and has pointed out to the observations made by this Court in the Judgment reported in 2008(1) ALL MR 78, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Anubai Gopichand Thakare & Ors., where the Judgment in case of Baljit Kaur is not followed. The observation in this regard reads as follows :- .Directions in Baljit Kaur's case (2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.)238) (Supra) appear to have been issued in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction available only to the Apex Court and could not be, therefore, basis of Prakash Sakharam Dudhankar's case (2006(2)) ALL MR 239.. 5. Learned Advocate has also pointed out to the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid case of Anubai Gopichand Thakre is followed with approval by Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sunanda wd/o Krishna Machivale & Ors., reported in 2008(5) ALL MR 757. 6. The question before this Court is whether to follow the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 238, M/s National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur or deviate, relying upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court. FA No.1288/08. 7. Unless a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not at all applicable on the facts of the case on hand, any judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in humble view of this Court has to be followed in letter and spirit, apart from arguments to the contrary, own views, likes or dislikes. 8. Pursuing a course of deviating therefrom would amount to speculate that Hon'ble Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers peculiar to the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. Unless Hon'ble Supreme Court restricts application of any Judgments to the case at hand, particularly, between the parties, and further directs that the Judgment would not operate as a precedent, will have to be followed as it stands as a binding precedent. This Court would, therefore, prefer to rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. 9. Unless Hon'ble Supreme Court restricts application of any Judgments to the case at hand, particularly, between the parties, and further directs that the Judgment would not operate as a precedent, will have to be followed as it stands as a binding precedent. This Court would, therefore, prefer to rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. In these premises, so long the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not in any of its Judgment direct that the law as laid down in the form of direction in Baljit Kaur's case should not be followed as a precedent, this Judgment has to be followed as a binding precedent, than finding a way out and deviate from it. 11. In the result, no fruitful purpose of law and justice would be served by admitting the appeal. Appeal therefore, deserves to be dismissed, and is dismissed. Needless to observe that the liberties available to FA No.1288/08. Insurance Company as in Baljit Kaur's case for re-coupment shall be available to the appellant herein.