Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 535 (TS)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Kalamma

2020-07-06

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 25.03.2005 in O.P.No. 2436 of 2001, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the appellant – Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- towards compensation to the respondents 1 to 7 - claimants against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 4556 jointly and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- laid by the respondents 1 to 7 - claimants for the death of the deceased in a road accident occurred on 28.10.2001. 3. Heard learned standing counsel for the appellant –Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 7 – claimants. 4. On the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded an amount of Rs.2,20,000/-. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate its contention that Ex.B.1 Policy is an “Act Policy” and the occupants of the vehicle which was a private vehicle were not covered by the policy. Without appreciating the said contention of the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded the above said compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- with 6% interest, fixed the liability on the appellant – Insurance company and the 8th respondent – owner of the vehicle. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.5,000/- to each of the children under the head of loss of love and affection in addition to customary head of loss of estate and also erred in granting Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is also contended by the appellant that the appellant filed a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, it is entitled to contest by taking all the defences available under law. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed to set aside the impugned order and decree. 6. It is also contended by the appellant that the appellant filed a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, it is entitled to contest by taking all the defences available under law. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed to set aside the impugned order and decree. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal on consideration of entire evidence both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. According to him, there is no dispute by the appellant – Insurance company with regard to the said finding in the present appeal. He would contend that though the policy is “Act Policy”, the appellant – Insurance company has to pay the compensation at the first place and it can recover the same from the 8th respondent – owner of the offending vehicle later. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has not awarded certain amounts to the claimants towards compensation and in fact the Tribunal has awarded only 6% interest per annum. The claimants are entitled for more amounts towards compensation and more interest. He would further contend that there is no appeal or cross objections filed by the claimants, still his Court being the appellate Court can grant just compensation by applying the principles. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the claimants prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. It is the specific contention of the claimants that on 28.10.2001 at about 12 noon, while the deceased was going in a Jeep bearing No.AP 11 B 882 along with others from Kandukur to Hyderabad, when they reached near Tummulur gate, the driver of the Jeep drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. Due to the said accident, the deceased fell down from the Jeep and received grievous injuries. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, wherein he died while undergoing treatment. 8. To prove the accident, the claimants have examined the 6th claimant, father of the deceased, as PW.1 and an eye witness to the accident as PW.2. They have also filed Ex. A1 - FIR, Ex.A2 - charge sheet and Ex.A.5 - MVI report. 9. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, wherein he died while undergoing treatment. 8. To prove the accident, the claimants have examined the 6th claimant, father of the deceased, as PW.1 and an eye witness to the accident as PW.2. They have also filed Ex. A1 - FIR, Ex.A2 - charge sheet and Ex.A.5 - MVI report. 9. Pw.1, father of the deceased, deposed about the accident. Admittedly, he is not an eye witness to the accident. Pw.2 is the eyewitness to the accident. According to PW.2, the deceased fell down from the offending vehicle due to the sudden jerk given by the driver of the Jeep driving in a rash and negligent manner. He has further deposed that he has lodged the complaint with the police and the police in turn registered a case vide Ex.A1 - FIR. The appellant – insurance company failed to examine any witness and failed to elicit anything contra from PW.2 during cross-examination. In the absence of any evidence much less convincing evidence to disprove the accident, it can be safely held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, on the analysis of the entire evidence, rightly held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 10. As stated above, as per the grounds of appeal and during the course of arguments, the appellant – Insurance company did not dispute the said finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the said finding attained finality. 11. The claimants have claimed that the deceased was aged 33 years as on the date of accident. However, they have not filed any document to show that the deceased was aged 33years as on the date of accident. However, in Ex.A4-PME report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 35 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased could be between 33 and 35 years. 12. The claimants have contended that the deceased was doing business at the time of accident and he used to run a chicken centre. He used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. To prove the same, the claimants have filed Ex.A6-certifiate issued by the Sarpanch, Rachaloor Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the age of the deceased could be between 33 and 35 years. 12. The claimants have contended that the deceased was doing business at the time of accident and he used to run a chicken centre. He used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. To prove the same, the claimants have filed Ex.A6-certifiate issued by the Sarpanch, Rachaloor Gram Panchayat. In the said Ex.A6, it is mentioned that the deceased was running a Chicken centre in the name and style of “Mahadevi Chicken Centre”. The appellant – Insurance company failed to disprove the said fact, either by way of producing any evidence or by examining any witness. The appellant – insurance company failed to elicit anything contra from PW.1 during cross examination. Therefore, the claimants have proved that the deceased was doing business as on the date of accident. 13. To prove that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by running the chicken centre, the claimants have not filed any document and they have not examined any witness. However, the Tribunal considering the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and also the cost of living, has considered the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. It is apt to note that the claimants have not preferred any appeal and they have not filed any cross-objections claiming enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.15,000/- per annum as the income of the deceased shall be maintained. 14. As discussed supra, the age of the deceased could be 33-35 years at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier for the said age group is ‘16’ as per the principle held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier ‘16’. There are seven dependants on the deceased. Therefore, 1/5th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per the principle in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) in case the number of dependants exceeds 6. As discussed supra, the annual income of the deceased is considered as Rs.15,000/-. After applying the multiplier 16, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 16). After deducting 1/5th from Rs.2,40,000/-, the actual income of the deceased to which the claimants are entitled under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.2,40,000 /- minus Rs.48,000/-). 15. After applying the multiplier 16, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 16). After deducting 1/5th from Rs.2,40,000/-, the actual income of the deceased to which the claimants are entitled under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.2,40,000 /- minus Rs.48,000/-). 15. An addition of 40% of the actual income of the deceased has to be awarded to the claimants towards future prospects as per the principle held by the Apex Court National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 since the deceased was aged below 40 years, and the same would work out to Rs.76,800/- (40% of Rs.1,92,000/-). 16. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- each to the four children of deceased under the head of love and affection in addition to customary head of loss of estate and that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. 17. Admittedly, the claimants are wife, children and parents of the deceased. Therefore, as per the principle held by the Apex Court Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the 1st claimant – wife, claimants 2 to 5 – children and claimants 6 and 7 – parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal, parental and filial consortium, respectively. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants are not entitled for the compensation under the heads loss of estate and loss of love and affection, is not acceptable. The claimants are further entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothes. 18. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants are not entitled for the compensation under the heads loss of estate and loss of love and affection, is not acceptable. The claimants are further entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothes. 18. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,84,800/- (Rupees Five lakhs eighty four thousand and eight hundred only) as compensation under the following heads: i Loss of dependency/contribution to family Rs.1,92,000/- ii Future prospects to an extent of 40% Rs.76,800/- iii Spousal Consortium Rs.40,000/- iv Parental consortium Rs.1,60,000/- v Filial consortium Rs.80,000/- vi Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- vii Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- viii Transportation Rs.5,000/- ix Damage to clothes Rs.1,000/- Total compensation Rs.5,84,800/- 19. In fact, the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,84,800/- (Rupees Five lakhs eighty four thousand and eight hundred only) towards compensation. But, in view of the principle held by the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager, (2011) 4 SCC 639 that where an appeal filed challenging the quantum of compensation irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. The High Court cannot enhance the compensation in an appeal by the Insurer for reducing the compensation nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. In view of the said principle, this Court cannot enhance the compensation in the appeal filed by the Insurance company as contended by the learned counsel for the claimants. Therefore, their entitlement is restricted to an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance company would contend that Ex.B1 – Policy is an ‘Act policy’, the occupants of the vehicle which is a private vehicle were not covered by the policy, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 21. On perusal of Ex.B1-policy, it is named as Certificate of Insurance of Private Car. Seating capacity is mentioned as ‘6’. It is valid from 18.30 hours of 06.07.2001 to mid night of 05.07.2002. It is mentioned in Ex.B1 – policy “Private Car (Zone A) Policy A Act only”. 21. On perusal of Ex.B1-policy, it is named as Certificate of Insurance of Private Car. Seating capacity is mentioned as ‘6’. It is valid from 18.30 hours of 06.07.2001 to mid night of 05.07.2002. It is mentioned in Ex.B1 – policy “Private Car (Zone A) Policy A Act only”. An amount of Rs.509/- was collected towards liability to Public – Basic. An amount of Rs.15/- was collected towards Legal Liability to Paid driver. In all, an amount of Rs.524/- was collected from the owner towards comprehensive premium. It is also mentioned in Ex.B1 – policy that “The Insured is not indemnified, if, the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with this schedule. Any payment made by the company by reason of wider terms appearing in the certificate in order to comply with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is recoverable from the Insured. 22. The accident was occurred on 28.10.2001. Therefore, Ex.B1 policy was in force as on the date of accident. According to PW.1, father of the deceased, the deceased was going in the offending vehicle along with others from Kandukur to Hyderabad at the time of accident. In Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-charge sheet, it is stated so. Nothing was elicited from PW.1 during cross examination by the appellant. They have not examined any witness and they have not filed any document to show that the deceased was gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. Admittedly, as per Ex.B1-policy, the seating capacity of the vehicle is 6. There is no evidence to show that there are more than 6 passengers in the Jeep at that time. The appellant – Insurance company did not examine any witness to prove the said fact. 23. It is the further contention of the appellant Insurance company that Ex.B1- policy is an Act policy and it is a private car and therefore, there is no risk coverage in respect of the occupants of the vehicle including the deceased. But as stated above, in Ex.B1, the seating capacity is mentioned as 6. The claimants have contended that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle along with others. In Ex.A1 - FIR also there is no mention of number of passengers. But as stated above, in Ex.B1, the seating capacity is mentioned as 6. The claimants have contended that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle along with others. In Ex.A1 - FIR also there is no mention of number of passengers. In Ex.A2-charge sheet, the police stated that their investigation reveals that on 28.10.2001, at Rachulur gate down on Srisailam high way, the offending vehicle which was proceeding from Kandukur to Hyderabad on the same direction, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the deceased who was sitting in side the Jeep fell down on the road and received bleeding injuries. There is no mention of number of passengers of the Jeep in Ex.A2. As state above, the Insurance company has collected an amount of Rs.509/- towards liability to public – basic and Rs.15/- towards Legal liability to paid driver. In all, the Insurance company has received Rs.524/- from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, having collected the said premium of Rs.509/- towards liability to Public – Basic, the appellant – Insurance company failed to establish that the deceased is a gratuitous passenger and that the deceased has paid fare to the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant also failed to establish that the offending vehicle was hired by the deceased. The appellant also failed to establish that Ex.B1 – Policy is covered for private car, the deceased was gratuitous passenger and that there is violation of policy conditions. In absence of the said evidence, it cannot be said that the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The appellant insurance company did not even examine the owner of the vehicle to prove that the offending vehicle was hired at the time of accident and deceased has paid fare to driver of the offending vehicle. In the absence of the same, it cannot be held that the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 24. Learned counsel for the claimants would contend that even in case of violation of policy conditions including driver of the offending not having valid driving license at the time of accident, gratuitous passenger etc., still the Insurer has to pay the compensation to the claimants at the first place and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle later. He has relied upon the unreported judgment in support of his contention in MACMA No.2279 of 2006 dated 29.10.2019 passed by this Court. In the said judgment, by referring several decisions including the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 , Nagula Tulasamma and another v. Golangi Bhoopathi and others, 2015 (1) ALD 613 , the principle of pay and recovery held in Manura Khatun v. Rajesh Kr.Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796 is accepted. Therefore, in case of gratuitous passenger, the Insurance company has to pay the compensation at the first place and later recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, in the present case, as discussed above, the appellant insurance company failed to establish that the deceased was gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. The Insurance company also failed to establish that as per Ex.B1 policy, the occupants of the vehicle in a private car were not covered by the policy. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The claimants have also relied upon another judgment reported in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184 , wherein also it is categorically held that it must be established by the Insurance company that the breach was on the part of the insured and that it was the insured who was guilty of violating the promise or infringement of the contract. 25. In the present case, the appellant – insurance company failed to examine the owner of the vehicle – insured. They have not examined any witness to show that there is violation of promise or infringement of contract, except filing Ex.B.1 policy. The appellant insurance company failed to prove that the deceased was gratuitous passenger and he was not covered by Ex.B1 policy. Therefore, even applying the said principle even if there is violation of policy conditions, as per the principle held by the Apex Court, the insurance company has to pay the compensation to the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased at the first place and later recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 26. Therefore, even applying the said principle even if there is violation of policy conditions, as per the principle held by the Apex Court, the insurance company has to pay the compensation to the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased at the first place and later recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 26. The claimants have also relied upon another judgment reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District v. N. Appi Reddy, 2011 (4) ALD 778 (DB), wherein a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had an occasion to deal with the liability of the Insurance company in respect of a private vehicle, Act Policy etc. Relying upon the decision reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 (1) ALD 98 SC, the Division Bench held that where there is violation of policy conditions, the Insurance company has to pay the compensation at the first place and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. As discussed above, in the present case, the appellant failed to prove that the deceased an occupant of the offending vehicle, which was insured under Ex.B1 policy was not covered under Ex.B1. The appellant also failed to prove that the deceased was gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the in the present case, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation along with 8th respondent – owner of the vehicle. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company relied upon the following judgments in support of her contention that the Tribunal and the High Court are not having power to grant compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased in case of violation of policy conditions. It is only the Supreme Court that can grant compensation to the claimants under the powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2014) 8 SCC 883 ). It is only the Supreme Court that can grant compensation to the claimants under the powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2014) 8 SCC 883 ). In the said case, the Supreme Court discussed about the powers of the High Court under Article 136, 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India and held that the directions issued to complete justice in a particular case in the peculiar facts and circumstances thereof under Article 142 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, on the other hand is a step ahead of the powers envisaged under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is the exercise of jurisdiction to pass such enforceable decree or order as is necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further discussed about the complete justice and held that directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court has compartmentalized and differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as against the law declared. The directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not compromise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. The Supreme Court further held that the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus in view of the discussion, there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first two judgments and the later judgment. The Supreme Court further held that the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus in view of the discussion, there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first two judgments and the later judgment. But, in the present case, as stated above, the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the Insurance company cannot place reliance on the said judgments. The principle held in the said judgments is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the principle held by the Apex Court in Dr. T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M. Alias Thankachan, (2001) 8 SCC 748 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the liability of the Insurer in case of a gratuitous passenger held that the Insurance company has to pay the compensation at the first place to the legal heirs of the deceased and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, as discussed above, the appellant – Insurance company failed to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident and that there was violation of policy conditions. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 30. Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance company has also relied upon the principle held by the Apex Court in Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the fastening of liability on insurer to pay compensation to injured victims/dependants and then recover the same from the owner, in respect of the gratuitous passenger, held that the Insurance company has to pay the compensation at the first place and shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In the said case, the Apex Court has also referred about principle of pay and recovery, liability of insurer in respect of gratuitous passenger was referred to larger bench, still there is no bar to follow the said judgments under reference. 31. In the said case, the Apex Court has also referred about principle of pay and recovery, liability of insurer in respect of gratuitous passenger was referred to larger bench, still there is no bar to follow the said judgments under reference. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance company has also relied upon the principle held by the Apex Court in Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 72 , wherein the Apex Court held that many a time, after declaring the law, the Apex Court in the operative part of the judgment, gives some directions which may either relax the application of law or exempt the case on hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts or in view of the uncertainty of law till then, to do complete justice. While doing so, normally it is not stated that such direction/order is in exercise of power under Article 142. It is not uncommon to find that courts have followed not the law declared, but the exemption/relaxation made while moulding the relief in exercise of power under Article 142. When the High Courts repeatedly follow a direction issued under Article 142, by treating it as the law declared by the Apex Court, incongruously the exemption/ relaxation granted under Article 142 becomes the law, though at variance with the law declared by the Apex Court. The courts should therefore be careful to ascertain and follow the ratio decidendi, and not the relief given on the special facts, exercising power under Art. 142. One solution to avoid such a situation is for this Court to clarify that a particular direction or portion of the order is in exercise of power under Art. 142, be that as it may. 32. By referring the above said judgments, the learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that it is the Hon’ble Apex Court which is having power to grant compensation under Article 142 of the Constitution and there is no such power to the High Court and the Tribunals. As discussed above, the appellant – Insurance company failed to establish that the deceased was gratuitous passenger, he was not covered under Ex.B1 policy. Therefore, the appellant – Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. As discussed above, the appellant – Insurance company failed to establish that the deceased was gratuitous passenger, he was not covered under Ex.B1 policy. Therefore, the appellant – Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. It is relevant to note that the rule of pay and recovery is acceptable rule and the said directive is a directive under Article 141 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court. This Court and various High Courts have been following the said directive since it is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, but not a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution. Viewed from any angle, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon another judgment reported in Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381 with regard to the very same principle. In the said case also the Apex Court held that the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is binding. Any direction given on special facts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, is not a binding precedent. Therefore, the principle therein is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 34. The appellant’s counsel also relied upon the following two judgments: (i) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balkar Ram, 2013 ACJ 2416 and (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmamma, 2012 ACJ 1307 , for the very same principle. Therefore, the said principle also is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 35. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision in Manuara Khatun’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealt with Sections 149 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the applicability of the principle of pay and recovery, by referring its earlier judgments in Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) and Sajju P. Paul’s case (supra). The Apex Court also referred the principle held by it in Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) and Sajju P. Paul’s case (supra). In the said case, the Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was private vehicle, it was hired by the deceased therein and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. The Apex Court also referred the principle held by it in Baljit Kaur’s case (supra) and Sajju P. Paul’s case (supra). In the said case, the Tribunal held that the offending vehicle was private vehicle, it was hired by the deceased therein and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation. In the said case, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance company and fixed the liability only on the owner of the vehicle. The claimants preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation and the owner of the vehicle filed appeal challenging the finding of fixation of liability only on the owner of the vehicle. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the claimants and held that the Insurer was not liable because the passengers or occupants were being carried in a private vehicle as gratuitous passengers. The claimants preferred the appeals before the Hon’ble Apex Court. By referring its earlier judgments referred supra, the Apex Court held that the Insurance company being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to the negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing the Insurance company to first pay the awarded sum to the claimants and recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle. 36. In the present case also, the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant – Insurance company failed to prove that the deceased was gratuitous passenger, he was not covered under Ex.B1 – Policy and the offending vehicle was a private vehicle. Therefore, in the present case, the appellant – Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The principle held in Manuara Khatun’s case (supra) by the Apex Court is not applicable to the present case since in the present case, the appellant - Insurance company failed to prove that there is violation of policy conditions, the deceased was gratuitous passenger. In the said case, the deceased was gratuitous passenger and the Insurance company has proved that he was gratuitous passenger. 37. In the said case, the deceased was gratuitous passenger and the Insurance company has proved that he was gratuitous passenger. 37. In view of the above said discussion, the appellant – Insurance company failed to establish that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, there was violation of policy conditions by the 8th respondent - owner of the vehicle and that Ex.B1 – Policy the private car Act policy, occupants of the vehicle were not covered under the said policy. Thus, the appellant – Insurance company failed to establish any ground or circumstance that warrants interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 38. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order and decree, dated 25.03.2005 in O.P.No.2436 of 2001, passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.