1.      This Revision Petition No. 479 of 2017 challenges the impugned order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) dated 06.10.2016. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed Appeal No.1446 of 2015 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-I (‘the District Forum’) dated 27.10.2015.

2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he was the owner of vehicle No. RJ14-UB-3307 which was Insured vide Policy No.141402/31/10/01/00003685 valid from 21.08.2010 to 20.08.2011 with the Opposite Party (OP) insurance company and paid premium for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.7.25,000/-. Before granting insurance cover, the OP has not provided any term and condition and also not issued any prospectus.  The said vehicle had met with an accident on 25.05.2011 at Chhoti Udai, PS Wajipur, Distt Sawaimadhopur and vehicle sustained extensive damages.  He filed the claim with OP for the damaged vehicle with all relevant documents with the OP. The OP, however, repudiated the claim on account of non-production of the Driving Licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The OP, in its Reply, admitted insuring the said vehicle from 21.08.2010 to 20.08.2011. While insuring the vehicle, the terms and condition of insurance policy were conveyed to the insured and original policy was provided with terms and conditions. The OP in reply further stated that the Complainant has informed regarding the accident of his vehicle RJ14-UB-3307 on 25.05.2011 near Chhoti Udei, Gokund while coming from Gangapur Side on 09.06.2011, in which the name of the driver was shown as Arun Kumar Meena. Whereas, in the statements of witnesses Shri Akash and Kushal enclosed with Rojnamcha Marg report No. 23/2012 of Police Station Bajipur has stated that at the time of accident vehicle was being driver by Simran D/o Asha Ram Meena. Thus, the OP asked the Complainant vide letters dated 22.03.2012, 27.04.2012, 06.08.2012 and 29.08.2012 to produce the copy of driving licence of Simran. But, the Complainant neither replied the said letters nor produced copy of driving licence of Simran. Due to which the OP closed claim of Complainant. OP exhibited no deficiency in service.

4.      The learned District Forum vide order dated 27.10.2015, allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party as under:

“Complaint of complainant is admitted against opposite party insurance company. Opposite party will pay Rs. 4,75,500/- to complainant within one month from the date of decision, beside this, insurance company will pay interest @9% per annum on this amount from the date of repudiation of claim form till payment. On account of repudiation of claim by insurance company. the complainant suffered mental agony for which insurance company will pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Beside this, the insurance company will pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

If the opposite party will not pay above sums within one month from the date of decision then the complainant will be entitled to receive interest on these sums @9% per annum from the date of order till payment.

The order written and pronounced today on 27.10.15.”

5.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 06.10.2016 directed as follows:

“Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

  The respondent has come with a case that at the time of accident Arun Kumar was driving the vehicle and to support this contention the complainant has submitted his affidavit whereas the appellant has submitted the statement of two witnesses Kushal and Kapil recorded during the proceedings of 174 Cr.P.C. which has not been relied upon the Forum below.

  The contention of the appellant is that statements are public documents and they are admissible in evidence without further proof. Reliance has been placed on (2001) AIR (Raj.) 334 RSRTC Vs. Nand Kishore where it has been held that if document is certified copy of a public document, it need not be proved by calling a witness but para 8 of the judgment clearly speaks that strict provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to the Tribunal while dealing the cases for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accident and in the light of above the preposition has been held which is not the case here.

  The respondent has rightly relied upon 2007 (2) T.A.C. 398 (SC) where the apex court has warned that conceptual difference between third party and own damage cases to be kept in view. The respondent has also relied upon IV (2011) CPJ 243 (NC) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.S. Venkatesh Babu where it has been held that the FIR and the statements recorded by the police are not substantive piece of evidence. Further reliance has been placed on 2006 NCJ 738 National Insurance Co. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Gill & ors. Hence, Nand Kishore's case (supra) could not give any assistance to the appellant.

  Furthermore the survey report prepared in the case also speaks that Arun Kumar Meena was the driver and his driving license has also been checked by the surveyor. The counsel for the respondent has rightly placed reliance on Insurance Surveyors and Loss The Assessors (Licensing, Professional Requirements and Code of Conduct) Regulations of 2000 in which duties and responsibilities of a surveyor are codified and it is the duty of the surveyor to investigate about the causes and circumstances of the losses and after investigation it is not the conclusion of the surveyor that Arun Kumar Meena was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. Further more the Dy. Manager of the Insurance Company has sent a letter to the complainant accepting Arun Kumar Meena as driver and directed to produce his license. Hence, it was the admission on the part of the Insurance Company that Arun Kumar was driving the vehicle and it is well settled preposition of law that admission of the party is the best evidence to prove the fact and when the Insurance Company has come with a case that Arun Kumar was the driver of the vehicle, now this admission cannot be withdrawn. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held that Arun Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time of accident having a valid driving license.

  In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.”

6.      The learned counsel for the Petitioners reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Complainant had not produced driving license of Ms.Simran who was driving the vehicle and the repudiation of claim was justified as per terms of the insurance policy. He sought the impugned orders of the lower fora be set aside.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) Malay Kumar Ganguly V. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9SCC 221;

(b) Ethiopian Airlines V. Ganesh Narain Saboo, (2011) 8 SCC 539;

(c) Geeta Jethani v. Airport Authority of India, 2004 SCC Online NCDRC 7.

7.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant argued in support of the impugned orders passed by the learned District Forum and the State Commission.

8.      I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

9.      The learned District Forum issued a well-reasoned order based on evidence and arguments advanced before it. The learned State Commission, after due consideration of the pleadings and arguments, determined that no intervention is warranted on the District Forum's order. This was primarily because the grounds relied upon in the repudiation letter are not supported by leading any cogent and convincing evidence, the Dy. Manager of the Insurance Company has forwarded a letter to the Complainant accepting Arun Kumar Meena as the driver and sought production of his license and, further, no evidence has been led by the Petitioner-United India Insurance Co Ltd that instead of Mr. Arun Kumar Meena, Ms. Simran was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident. This order is now under challenge at the revision stage.

10.    It is a well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire material, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269.

11.    In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr.  Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.    Similarly, in a recent order the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:- 

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

13.    Based on the deliberations above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 27.10.2015 is modified to the extent that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded on account of mental agony and harassment awarded is set aside in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S. Dhanda, in CA Nos. 4910-4941 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019 has held that multiple compensations for singular deficiency is not justifiable.

14.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

15.    All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly