IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.NO.111 OF 2008. Date:15.12.2010 Between:- Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., rep.by its Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam. ..Appellant/Respondent No.3 And Bandari Chinnayya and others .. Respondents/Claimant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 JUDGMENT:- Insurance Company, aggrieved by Award dated 26-09-2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in O.P.No.215 of 2005 directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount of Rs.78,800/- to the injured-claimant and to recover the same from the insured, filed this appeal. There is no dispute about the factum of accident which took place on 16-12-2004 at about 1 p.m. near Malliveedu village, in which motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 AR/TR/2169 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the injured-claimant resulting in injuries to him. The lower Tribunal further found that driver of the motor cycle was not having driving license and that Ex.B-10 copy of driving license is a fake one. In those circumstances, the lower Tribunal, after assessing compensation payable to the injured- claimant as Rs.78,800/-, directed the insurance company to deposit the said amount and to recover the same from the insured. Sheet anchor of the petitioners’ contention is on ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED VS. PRITHVI RAJ[1] of the Supreme Court. The lower Tribunal based its decision on NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED Vs. SWARAN SINGH[2] of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that in case there is any policy violation in a case relating to claims of third parties, the Insurance Company cannot absolve its liability totally, but has to pay the claim amount as decided by the Tribunal and to recover the same from the insured. It was also reiterated by the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. LAXMI NARAIN DHUT[3]. Swaran Singh (2 supra) was rendered by a Bench consisting of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court whereas Laxmi Narain Dhut (3 supra) rendered by two learned Judges of the Supreme Court clarified that Swaran Singh (2 supra) was applicable as against claims relating to third parties only and not in so far as personal claims of the insured. While quoting the above two reported decisions of the Supreme Court, in Prithvi Raj (1 supra), the Supreme Court permitted the Insurance Company to take back the amount, which was already deposited by the Insurance Company before the Court. Prithvi Raj (1 supra) is totally inapplicable to facts of the present case because it was a case of owner of the mini bus making a claim for compensation as against Insurance Company before the State Commission under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In my opinion, Swaran Singh (2 supra) of the Supreme Court is the decision holding the field in cases relating to claims of third parties and in that view of the matter, the impugned Award passed by the lower Tribunal is valid and legal and is not liable to be disturbed in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 15th December 2010 AMD [1] AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1408(1) [2] 2004(3) Supreme Court Cases 297 [3] 2007(3) SCR 579