Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Both these appeals raise identical issues and therefore, are taken up for hearing together.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not having license which was supposed to be held for driving a vehicle known as Tata Jeep Magic. In paragraph 7 he has relied on following authoritative pronouncements: "7. Because the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment, reported in 2016 TAC, Mukuna Devangan v. oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , has observed that the grant of license to drive Transport Vehicle, became effective from 28th March, 2001 i.e. the date on which the Form was amended and held that the vehicle was Goods Vehicle, as such the driver did not hold a valid driving license for driving a Goods Vehicle, and considered the earlier judgments in case of S. Iyyapan v. United India Ins. Co. 2013 TAC (3) page 392 , Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Ins. Co. 2014 TAC(4) page 676 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, 2008 TAC (1) , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir 2008 TAC(3) page 20 and Oriental Ins. Co. v. Angad Kol 2009 TAC (2) page 4 , the view taken is that it is necessary for holder of Light Motor Vehicle License, to obtain specific endorsement on its license, to drive Transport Vehicle of the light Motor Vehicle weight and due to conflict in the above decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred the matter to a larger Bench." Recently, this High Court in F.A.F.O. 2389 of 2016 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Vidyawati Devi and 2 Others held as follows : "It is no doubt correct that issue with respect to grant of future prospects has been referred to a larger Bench for adjudication in the case of National Insurance Company v. Smt. Pushpa Devi & others, 2015(9) SCC 166 and Shashikal and others v. Gangalakshmamma and another, 2015 (2) T.A.C. 867 (S.C.). But equally settled is the proposition that unless an adjudication by a larger Bench is pronounced, the judgment, which has been referred, does not loose its efficacy and continues to have all the binding force. In such view of the matter, the view taken by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Cour in case of Munna Lal Jain (supra) and Rajesh (Supra) still holds good. Thus, addition of 50% income towards future prospects awarded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with." And therefore the earlier decision of the apex Court will enure for the benefit of the claimants and the owner.
(3.) The next issue which learned counsel for the appellant has raised is that the driver of the alleged vehicle had no license or fake license and, therefore, also the Insurance Company is not liable. It is submitted that the said vehicle was driven in violation of statutory provisions enunciated in Section 147 read with Section 149 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.;