1. The primary question raised in this appeal is that, in a connected appeal, this Court had already allowed the appeal and directed 'pay and recover'. The contention raised in this appeal is that this Court should follow the same principle applied in the connected appeal, which was disposed of by judgment dated 29.08.2018 in M.A.C.A. No. 2440 of 2008 (arising out of O.P.(M.V.) No. 925 of 2005 on the file of MACT, Ottappalam, dated 29.12.2007).

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the aforesaid judgment rendered in the connected appeal has become per incuriam in light of the decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul and Another [2021 (2) KHC 449] and Amudhavalli v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2025 KHC OnLine7563].

3. The brief facts involved in this case are as follows: The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of two persons, namely Kumar @ Vijayakumar and Kamala Kannan @ Kuttan. Both of them were travelling in a goods vehicle and died in an accident that occurred on 22.07.2003. They were travelling in a mini-lorry bearing registration No. KL-5C-1253 from Shoranur to Ottappalam along with other workers. When the vehicle, driven by the 1st respondent, reached near Asha Deepam School at Koonathara, he swerved it to the left side in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the toppling of the vehicle along with its passengers. Both the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. A crime was registered against the 1st respondent, the driver of the mini-lorry. The legal heirs of the deceased Kamala Kannan filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-.

4. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the existence of a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. However, they denied the liability to indemnify the 2nd respondent on the ground that the policy does not cover liability toward passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, and that carrying passengers in such a vehicle was in breach of the policy conditions. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions on both sides, framed issues regarding the cause of the accident, the liability to pay compensation, and the quantum.

5. Both claim petitions were tried jointly. For the purpose of adjudication, the Tribunal marked Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.B1, and PWs 1 and 2 were examined.

6. In the light of Exts. A2, A4 and A5, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent. Consequently, it awarded a compensation of Rs.4,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, directing the amount to be recovered from the 1st and 2nd respondents jointly and severally.

7. Aggrieved by the exoneration of the Insurance Company from liability and the inadequacy of the compensation awarded under various heads, the claimants have preferred this appeal. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, by judgment dated 29.08.2018 in M.A.C.A. No. 2440 of 2008 (arising out of O.P.(M.V.) No. 925 of 2005), this Court allowed the connected appeal by setting aside the award to the extent it exonerated the Insurance Company, relying on Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others [(2017) 4 SCC 796]. It was held therein that the Insurance Company be directed to satisfy the enhanced compensation and subsequently reimburse/recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle within a stipulated period. The appellants pray that the same principle be followed in this appeal as well.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the judgment of this Court in M.A.C.A. No. 2440 of 2008 is per incuriam, as it runs counter to the settled position laid down in Daisy Paul and Amudhavalli (supra), as well as National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani and Others [2009 (2) KLT Suppl. 1372 (SC)]. Relying on Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude [2023 KHC OnLine 7073], it was further contended that the direction to 'pay and recover' is an extraordinary power exercisable only by the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and cannot be exercised by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

9. Further added that the principles of res judicata apply to the present case. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Pandit Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [1979 KHC 665] and Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty and Another [2018 KHC 6324].

10. Heard Sri.Philip T Varghese, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

11. The fundamental premise of the doctrine of per incuriam is that a decision rendered in ignorance of a binding statutory provision or a binding precedent lacks precedential value and need not be followed in subsequent proceedings. This doctrine operates as an exception to the rule of stare decisis, ensuring that an erroneous decision rendered without considering the applicable law does not perpetuate further error.

12. The judgment in M.A.C.A. No. 2440 of 2008 was rendered on 29.08.2018. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, namely Daisy Paul and Amudhavalli, supra were delivered subsequent to that judgment. Although another decision cited, Rattani and others (supra), was rendered in 2009, the learned Single Judge of this Court followed the later decision of the Apex Court in Manuara Khatun supra. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be construed as per incuriam, as contended by the respondent.

13. The mere fact that an earlier judgment in a connected appeal is alleged to contain an error in the light of subsequent declaration of the law by the Apex Court does not, by itself, render it per incuriam. The doctrine is attracted only where a decision has been rendered in ignorance of a binding statutory provision or a binding precedent. If the earlier judgment merely suffers from a misappreciation of settled principles, it cannot be categorized as per incuriam; rather, the proper course is to apply the correct legal principles while deciding the pending appeal or, where judicial discipline so demands, to refer the matter to a Larger Bench.

14. Similarly, regarding the contention raised on the principle of res judicata, the general rule is that all issues that arise directly and substantially in a former suit or proceeding between the same parties are barred by res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding between them. This encompasses issues of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, and pure questions of law.

15. In the case at hand, the claimants in the two awards are different, though the respondents remain the same. Strictly speaking, while the technical bar of res judicata may not apply in its traditional sense across independent claim petitions filed by different sets of legal heirs, the fact remains that the accident giving rise to the claims is one and the same. The respondent Insurance Company suffered a final judgment in M.A.C.A. No. 2440 of 2008 arising from the death of the other deceased, Kumar @ Vijayakumar, wherein this Court directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the enhanced compensation in appeal and recover the same from the 2nd respondent. No appeal was preferred against the said judgment, and it has attained finality. This Court is bound to follow the same consistent view, given that in a common award arising out of the same accident, one appeal has already been allowed, and no distinct grounds exist to take a contrary view here, save for the contentions regarding the direction to 'pay and recover'.

16. In this regard, as per the recent position settled in Kaminiben & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174], the Apex Court restored a Tribunal's order directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants and subsequently recover the same from the vehicle owner. The facts involved in that case are substantially similar to those in the present case. There, a tempo (goods vehicle) was insured with the respondent Insurance Company on the date of the accident. The deceased had hired the tempo primarily to transport goods (a Ganesh idol for immersion), and the travelling of passenger was merely incidental. Consequently, the deceased was treated as a gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods. While the Tribunal had directed the insurer to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the owner, the High Court had set aside that 'pay and recover' direction. The Apex Court, distinguishing Amudhavalli (supra), held that where the facts are akin to Manuara Khatoon (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul [(2013) 2 SCC 41], the 'pay and recover' direction is fully justified to advance the beneficial object of the Act.

17. In the case at hand, it is evident from the facts that the deceased were travelling in a mini-lorry along with other workers, accompanying their tools, at the time of the accident. In the connected appeal, this Court allowed the claim by following the decisions of the Apex Court in Manuara Khatun and others and Saju P. Paul (supra). Consequently, I find no ground to deviate from the view taken in the said judgment. Following the principle laid down therein, I deem it appropriate to grant a similar direction to pay and recover as directed in the connected appeal while also enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

                  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified as follows, following the judgment in MACA No.2440 of 2008:

                 

                 

                  In the result, the appellants are entitled for an enhanced amount of ₹2,96,000/- (Rupees Two lakh ninety-six thousand only) (4,58,000 – 7,54,000) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. The insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the claimants in accordance with the apportionment percentage ordered by the Tribunal, after making deductions, if any.