JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed against the impugned Order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan in Appeal No. 359 of 2019, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, and the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed. 2. The summarized factual background is that the Complainant Mr. Dharam Singh purchased a Maruti Swift car with registration number RJ-07-CB-3355 from Audi Motors, located Opposite Ullmul Dairy, Ganga Nagar Road, Bikaner. Subsequently, he insured the vehicle with the Petitioner Insurance Company for the period between 31.10.2014 to 30.10.2015, on payment of a premium of Rs. 12,684/-. On 22.02.2015, the vehicle sustained substantial damage in a road accident, resulting in the filing of FIR No. 18/15 at the Pugal Police Station. The accident caused severe damage to the vehicle, including significant impairment to the front portion, engine detachment, roof and door destruction, and damage to the front tires and lights. Promptly following the incident, the Complainant notified the Petitioner and provided all the pertinent vehicle-related documents. On request of the Petitioner, the Complainant was instructed to furnish certified copies of the requisite documents post the filing of a charge sheet concerning the accident. Furthermore, he was directed to obtain an estimate for the vehicle's repair from an authorized workshop, with the assurance from the Petitioner to cover all the repair expenses. The workshop, Audi Motors, assessed the damage and determined the vehicle to be beyond repair, estimating repair costs at approximately Rs. 4,00,000/-. Although the Complainant duly communicated the submission of documents to the Petitioner, the claim was repudiated on September 16, 2015. The repudiation was grounded on the purported non-submission of the Driving License of Mr. Riyaz Mohammed, the deceased driver involved in the accident. The Complainant contends that he had previously informed the Petitioner in writing regarding Mr. Riyaz Mohammed's driving license at the time of submission of documents. Moreover, he highlights the submission of the Charge Sheet, filed by the police post investigation, implicating the negligent truck driver who had collided with the car. Aggrieved by such wrongful repudiation, the Complainant initiated legal action by filing a complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Bikaner. 3. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 01.03.2019 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant Rs. 3,43,235/- towards the loss of the vehicle along with interest @9% p.a. from 06.10.2015 till realization. The Petitioner filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 15.07.2019 dismissed the same, and affirmed the Order of the Ld. District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below – “…The accident claim of the complainant was repudiated by the respondent only on the ground that driving licence of the deceased Riyaz Mohammed was not submitted by the complainant. In this regard we do not find any error in the order passed by the District Forum by allowing the amount assessed by the surveyor with compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation by holding that there is deficiency in the service of the appellant/respondent since they did not make any efforts to verify the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle from the Transport Department. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that the appeal in question was filed after a delay of 45 days by the appellant/respondent and there is no sufficient reason for condoning the said delay. Hence the appeal of the appellant/respondent is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant/respondent is dismissed.” 4. Ld. Counsel for Respondent has argued that at the time of accident, the driver Riyaz Mohammed was having a valid and effective Driving Licence and the Insurance Company was informed about the same in writing while submitting other documents; That the Charge Sheet was submitted and filed in the Court by the Police after due investigation against the driver of the offending truck. The site plan included in the Charge Sheet also stated that the truck had hit the vehicle while coming from the wrong side. Therefore, the truck driver was solely responsible for the said accident and the accident took place because of his negligence; That there is no defect in the judgment passed by the State Commission and the District Forum. 5. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondent, and perused the material available on record. 6. On 9.10.2023, this Commission had passed the following order- “The point to be considered in this case is whether the complainant had actually informed the petitioner /Insurance Company about his inability to produce the driving licence of the deceased Riyaz Mohammed as pleaded Paragraph No.9 of his original complaint wherein he had stated that such information had been given to the Insurance Company “In Writing”. The petitioner from its side has filed copies of the letters dated 01.07.2015, 20.07.2015 and 16.09.2015. In first of the above aforesaid letters, the complainant was required to furnish information concerning the driving licence, and in the last letter his claim was closed on account of his failure to do the needful. But copy of any intimation/communication sent from the complainant’s side to the Insurance Company, in terms of averment in Paragraph No.9 of the complaint has not been forthcoming on record. Faced with this, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant undertakes to place on record a copy of his original complaint along with all the documents thereto for verification that any written information had been given to the Insurance Company. List on 13.11.2023.” 7. But the copy of such original complaint along with its supporting documents was not filed on behalf of Respondent on the adjourned date. One last opportunity was therefore, again granted to it on 13.11.2023. But no such document was again filed after which the matter was finally heard on 2.2.2024. 8. It is an admitted position that the Driving License of the deceased Riaz Mohmad never became available to the Insurance Company. In para 9 of the original complaint, it was the specific pleading of the Complainant - “9…………Firstly, at the time of accident the driver was having a valid and effective Driving Licence. The said Licence belonged to Riyaz Mohammed who died in the accident and the Insurance Company was informed about the same in writing while submitting other documents……..” 9. On a careful reading of the above averment, it can be hardly seen that it was nowhere the pleading of the Complainant that the Driving Licence of driver Riaz Mohmad ‘was destroyed’ in the accident, in which he himself died. On the other hand, the bald averment was that the valid and effective Driving Licence belonging to Riaz Mohmad, who died in the accident and the Insurance Company was ‘informed about the same in writing while submitting other documents.” It was in view of this ambiguous averment, that this Commission had sought to see for itself exactly of the information “in writing” regarding the Driving Licence was given to the Insurance Company by the Complainant, for which reason he was directed to produce copies of the relevant documents, which he, however, failed to do so even on the next two dates. In the opinion of this Commission therefore, in view of the fact that own pleadings of the Complainant/Respondent, which is ambiguous about the availability of a valid Driving Licence, both the Ld. Fora below should not have shifted the onus upon the Insurance Company to make efforts to verify the Driving Licence from the Transport Department, in a situation when no particulars regarding the number of the Licence or even the office from which it was allegedly issued, were made available, and which particulars the Respondent/Complainant could not provide in spite of having been granted opportunities for such purpose by this Commission at this late stage in the revision proceedings. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission is of the opinion that both the Ld. Fora below had acted with material irregularity in allowing the Consumer Complaint by shifting burden of proving that the deceased Driver had no valid Driving Licence on the Insurance Company, when the Complainant from his side had been unable to provide even the sketchiest detail about such Licence, which his claim was actually valid. 11. The Revision Petition is therefore, allowed after setting aside the decisions of both the Ld. Fora below. The Complaint filed on behalf of Respondent/Complainant is accordingly, dismissed. 12. Parties to bear their own costs 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. | 
