JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Aditi Raol with Mr.Shalin N. Mehta, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant. Respondents are though duly served, has remained absent. Perused the record. 2. Considering the fact that appeal is pending since the year 2011, it certainly requires to be disposed of at the earliest, and, therefore, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. The record shows that while admitting the appeal on 5.12.2011, the Coordinate Bench has granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 4(A) of Civil Application whereby pending final hearing and disposal of this First Appeal, the operation, execution and implementation of impugned judgment and award dated 26.8.2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Morvi in MACP No.193/2008 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2,48,000/- with interest to the original claimant is stayed. Therefore also, appeal is required to be decided at the earliest, though respondents have chosen not to appear and to contest such appeal. 4. However, by order dated 16.1.2012, the Coordinate Bench has even in absence of the respondent/s modified its own order and directed the Tribunal to disburse 50% of the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and to invest remaining 50% in FDR with Nationalized Bank. 5. The sum and substance of the appellant in this appeal is to the effect that Tribunal has erred in fixing their liability and, thereby directing them to indemnify the driver and owner to pay the amount of compensation to the original claimants being legal heirs of the victim when victim was hit by a Rickshaw which was driven by the driver without holding a valid driving licence to drive such transport vehicle. 6. In Appeal Memo, it is specifically contended by the appellant that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the distinction between transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles and that Rickshaw involved in the accident being a light carriage vehicle under the category of transport vehicle and that when driver was not holding a valid licence to drive such vehicle, it cannot be held responsible to indemnify the owner of the award passed against driver and owner. 7. Thereby, it is contended that there is clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable. 8. 7. Thereby, it is contended that there is clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable. 8. On perusal of impugned judgment, it seems that probably driver of Rickshaw has not been joined as opponent and probably even insurance company has also not bothered to apply for joining the driver as opponent so as to prove their stand. 9. It is also recorded by the Tribunal in impugned judgment that though an attempt is made to examine the driver of the Rickshaw, ultimately, he was not examined and when basic information of accident as well as licence is with the driver of the Rickshaw only, in his absence, there cannot be any presumption against him. 10. Therefore, in absence of specific evidence before the Tribunal to conclude that Rickshaw driver does not have the licence to drive transport vehicle, there is no substance in the appeal and plea that they are not liable to indemnify the Rickshaw owner because driver does not have a valid licence to drive such vehicle. 11. Recently Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case between Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2017 (14) SCC 663 = AIR 2017 SC 3572 held that separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle is not necessary to confirm the liability of insurance company when driver is holding licence to drive particular class of vehicle. Thereby, sum and substance of such judgment is to the effect that if driver is holding licence for light motor vehicle, to fasten the liability of insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant by indemnifying the owner, even if, driver is driving the transport vehicle, an endorsement to that effect i.e. to driver the transport vehicle is not must. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in categorical terms held that driver holding light motor vehicle licence can drive any vehicle of such class of vehicle including transport vehicle and that no separate endorsement to that effect is required. This judgment is delivered by the larger bench (Three Judges') of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, following the principle laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. This judgment is delivered by the larger bench (Three Judges') of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, following the principle laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , unless and until there is judgment of equal Bench or larger Bench, this judgment remains in force and it cannot be ignored by any one. However, the appellants are relying upon the order dated 3.5.2018 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Application No.841 of 2018 between M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company v. Rambha Devi and others wherein after referring the conclusion in the case Mukund Dewangan (Supra) and after recording submissions of appellant in such case, the regular bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken view that it is appropriate that the submissions which they have noted in such order is to be considered by a larger bench of three judges and thereby the matter was directed to place before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Therefore, only because of such order to refer some issue to larger bench, all such cases cannot wait for indefinite period when there is effective judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) by larger bench. 13. A reference of discussion by full Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) = 2002 (1) SCC 1 on the subject is relevant wherein paragraph No.20 reads as under, which confirms that when there is a judgment by bench of three learned judges, the bench of two learned judges has to refer the matter before it to the bench of three learned judges if they want to take a different view than the decision by 3 learned judges in previous case. Paragraph No.20: In the context, we may fruitfully note what has been stated in Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik. In the said case, the Constitution Bench was dealing with a situation where the two-Judges Bench disagreeing with the three-Judges Bench decision directed the matter to be placed before a larger Bench of five Judges of this Court. In that scenario, the Constitution Bench stated: (SCC p. 4, para 6) “6... In our view, judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. In that scenario, the Constitution Bench stated: (SCC p. 4, para 6) “6... In our view, judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. But if a Bench of two learned Judges concludes that an earlier judgment of three learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the matter before it to a Bench of three learned Judges setting out, as has been done here, the reasons why it could not be agree with the earlier judgment...” 14. Even otherwise, as I have discussed hereinabove, in the present case, though plea is taken about not having valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle by the driver of the vehicle in question, there is neither pleading nor proof before the Tribunal to prove such contention, more particularly, when driver is never joined as opponent in main petition and when even if witness summons is prayed for, Insurance Company could not examine the driver or no other witness to prove that the driver was not having valid licence to drive such vehicle. Therefore, in absence of evidence, there must be a presumption that driver was having a valid licence. 15. Under the above circumstances, present appeal stands dismissed.