HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1873 of 2007 and 5099 of 2008 JUDGMENT: These two appeals are filed by National Insurance Company Limited questioning common award dated 23.09.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Khammam in MATOP Nos.890 of 2002 and 891 of 2002 awarding compensations of Rs.95,000/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively to the injured. In these appeals, the factum of accident is not in dispute muchless about driver of the accident vehicle bearing No.AP 20 T 3589 driving the same in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Further, quantum of compensation awarded is also not in dispute. The appellant’s counsel contended that there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 insurance policy covering the accident vehicle, inasmuch as the accident vehicle was driven by a person having no valid driving license. The insurance company filed Ex.B.2 copy of driving license issued by the Road Transport Authority to the effect that driver of the accident vehicle was not having licence to drive heavy goods vehicle and that he was having only driving licence for driving light motor vehicle (non-transport). The lower Tribunal did not place reliance on Ex.B.2 copy of driving license on the ground that no person who issued the said copy is examined. It is a wrong approach. Ex.B.2 copy of driving license of the driver was issued by the road transport authority. It being a public document, no proof thereof is necessary by examining the road transport authority who issued the same. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to find that the accident vehicle was driven by a person not having proper driving licence. The appellant’s counsel placed reliance on New India Assurance Company Limited v Prabhu Lal[1] and Sardari v Sushil Kumar[2] of the Supreme Court and contended that when there is violation of condition of insurance policy by way of the insured vehicle being driven by a person holding no valid driving license, then insurance company is totally not liable to pay compensation for claims arising out of the accident involving the insured vehicle. On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel placed reliance on National Insurance Company Limited v Swaran Singh[3] of the Supreme Court and contended that in the above fact situation, the proper course to be adopted by the Tribunal is that the insurance company should be directed to pay the awarded compensation and recover the same from the insured for violation of policy condition. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that earlier decision of Swaran Singh was referred to in the latter decision in Prabhu Lal and inspite of it, the Supreme Court in Prabhu Lal, totally exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation. Though Prabhu Lal referred to Swaran Singh, the course prescribed in Swaran Singh was not followed in Prabhu Lal. B ut Prabhu Lal as well as Sardari are two decisions rendered by two Benches of the Supreme Court with two learned Judges each, whereas, Swaran Singh was rendered by the Bench of Supreme Court consisting of three learned Judges. Therefore, this Court is bound by the decision rendered by three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh, which holds the field even today. Thus, in case there are any policy violations like the insured vehicle being driven by a person not holding valid driving license, then it cannot have any effect on third party claims arising out of the insurance policy. It is only the parties to the contract of insurance who are bound by the terms inter se. In the case of any claim by the insured as against the insurer, the insurer can always resist such a claim on the ground of violation of any of the terms of the policy; and such resistance to the insurance company is not available as against third party to the insurance policy. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with a clarification that after payment of compensation amount, the appellant/insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the insured. No costs. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 24th November, 2010. PNV [1] (2008)1 SCC 696 [2] 2008 ACJ 1307 [3] (2004) 3 SCC 297