Case: Manuara Khatun  Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh

several decisions of this Court rendered by three Judge Bench and two Judge Bench in past, viz., National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & Ors., 2004(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 722 : (2004) 2 SCC 1 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 517 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors., 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 902 : (2008) 8 SCC 246 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshan Lal, [Order dated 19.1.2007 in SLP© No. 5699 of 2006], and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni & Anr., 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 269 : (2009) 8 SCC 785. 16. This question also fell for consideration recently in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr., (supra) wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of "pay and recover".17. Justice R.M. Lodha (as His Lordship then was and later became CJI) speaking for the Bench held in paras 20 and 26 as under:"20. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this case a direction could be issued to the Insurance Company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 2 herein).26. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 and Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, the claimant was 28 years old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to the stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The Insurance Company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 1-8-2011 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, SLP© No. 20127 of 2011 and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court along with accrued interest. The Insurance Company (the appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the Insurance Company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in Challa Upendra Rao(supra)."18. The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as "gratuitous passengers" in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In Saju P. Pauls case (supra) also having held that the victim was "gratuitous passenger", this Court issued directions against the Insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the Insured in the same proceedings.19. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 (United India Insurance Company Ltd.), however, contended that the facts of the case at hand are not identical to the one involved in the case of Saju P. Paul (supra) and hence the law laid down therein cannot be applied to the facts of the case at hand. Learned counsel pointed out that firstly, the awarded compensation in this case is quite substantial and secondly, it is not yet paid to the claimants. Learned counsel also submitted that since the question involved herein is referred to a larger Bench and hence this Court should not give such directions, as prayed by the appellants, against the Insurance Company.20. We find no merit in any of the submissions. Firstly, as mentioned above, we find marked similarity in the facts of this case and the one involved in Saju P. Pauls Case (supra). Secondly, merely because the compensation has not yet been paid to the claimants though the case is quite old (16 years) like the one in Saju P. Pauls Case (supra), it cannot be a ground to deny the claimants the relief claimed in these appeals. Thirdly, this Court has already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed herein due to pendency of the reference to a larger Bench as would be clear from Para 26 of the judgment in Saju P. Pauls case (supra). That apart, learned counsel for the appellants stated at the bar that the reference made to the larger Bench has since been disposed of by keeping the issue undecided. It is for this reason also, the argument does not survive any more.21. It is for all these reasons, we find no good ground to take a different view than the one consistently being taken by this Court in all previous decisions, which are referred supra, in this regard.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellantsThe aforesaid question, in our opinion, remains no more res integra.The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as "gratuitous passengers" in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In Saju P. Pauls case (supra) also having held that the victim was "gratuitous passenger", this Court issued directions against the Insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the Insured in the same proceedings.We find no merit in any of the submissions. Firstly, as mentioned above, we find marked similarity in the facts of this case and the one involved in Saju P. Pauls Case (supra). Secondly, merely because the compensation has not yet been paid to the claimants though the case is quite old (16 years) like the one in Saju P. Pauls Case (supra), it cannot be a ground to deny the claimants the relief claimed in these appeals. Thirdly, this Court has already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed herein due to pendency of the reference to a larger Bench as would be clear from Para 26 of the judgment in Saju P. Pauls case (supra). That apart, learned counsel for the appellants stated at the bar that the reference made to the larger Bench has since been disposed of by keeping the issue undecided. It is for this reason also, the argument does not survive any more.21. It is for all these reasons, we find no good ground to take a different view than the one consistently being taken by this Court in all previous decisions, which are referred supra, in this regard.