( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by an Insurance Company under Sec. 110- d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been referred to us by the Division Bench consisting of S. B. Majmudar and I. C. Bhatt, JJ. , as they then were, which took the view that Sec. 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Act required correct interpretation in view of the apparently conflicting judgments of two Division Benches of this Court, in the Oriental Fire. and general Insurance Company Limited v. Ganchi Ramanlal Kantilal (Since deceased) and Ors. , (1979) XX GLR 134, and in the State of Gujarat v. Hansa Visanji Rana, 1988 (2) TAC 135. The order for reference was made at the time of admitting the appeal, and the relevant portion of the said order which relates to the controversy is reproduced hereinbelow :"admit. This appeal is directed to be referred to a larger bench in view of the fact that the decision on which the appellant-Insurance Company relies in the case of State of Gujarat v. Hansa Visanji Rana, 1988 (2) TAC 135 comes to a conclusion which is directly contrary to the conclusion reached on similar facts by earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and