1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 31.05.2023 in Appeal No. 360 of 2016 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh arising out of Order dated 30.01.2016 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 202 of 2011.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3.       It appears that the complaint was filed with the following prayer:

(A) That Opposite Party be directed to pay the suminsured i.e. Rs.6,50,000/- along with 18% interest accrued thereon from 13-12-10 till payment made. 

(B) That Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs 50,000/- as damages. 

(C) That Opposite Party be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of this complaint and Notice. 

(D) That any other relief, which Forum deems fit and proper be also awarded to the Complainant against the Opposite Party. 

4.       In order to bring forth the facts which are germane to issues involved in the matter at hand the relevant extract from the District Commission’s Order may be first usefully extracted as follows:-

…

it is established that the truck bearing No. UP-86D- 9741 of the complainant was met with an accident on 13.12.2010 and the aforesaid truck was insured with the respondent Shriram General Insurance Co. w.e.f. 28.06.2010 to 27.06.2011. The truck had met with an accident during the insurance period itself. Ashif Khan was driving the truck at the time of the accident. The survey of the accidental truck was got conducted by the respondents. The accident was found correct in the Survey Report, but the payment of the loss caused in the accident was not made by the respondents and the claim of the complainant was rejected.It is alleged by the complainant that an act of deficiency in service has been committed on behalf of the respondents, therefore, an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- towards the insured amount may be awarded to be given by the respondents to the complainant and an interest @ 18% may be ordered to be paid w.e.f. 13.12.2010 till its realization. 

It is submitted by the respondents that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The licence of the driver was not filed by the complainant along with the claim as to which was the driver who was driving the vehicle, therefore, no act of any deficiency in service has been committed on behalf of the respondents in any manner whatsoever, hence, the complaint may be dismissed. 

5.       District Commission while dealing with the defence of the petitioners proceeded to record the following findings:-

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that as the driving licence of Mohd. Sayed which has been filed is not valid, therefore, the claim has been rejected as per Rules. It has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that Mohd. Sayed is complainant and he is the owner of the truck, therefore, his driving licence has not been filed, rather the truck was being driven by Ashif Khan and a photocopy of his valid driving licence is filed as 11A/2 and 11A/3 in which, report of the official who had issued the licence is also annexed. Ashif Khan's licence is valid w.e.f. 23.02.2012 till 22.02.2015, as such, this fact is found to be established that at the time the aforesaid truck accident, the driver Ashif Khan was driving the vehicle and his driving licence is valid. 

6.       After delving into the entire factual matrix of the case the following observation was made by the District Commission:-

In our opinion, the claim of the complainant has been rejected by the respondents in an illegal manner. The complainant is eligible for the compensation of the loss caused in the accident. Document No. 5A/3 copy of the Insurance Policy is available at the case file in accordance of which, the insured amount of the vehicle of the complainant was Rs. 6,50,000/-. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the complainant may be awarded the insured amount alongwith interest. As per the Statement as Document No. 5A/11 and 5A/12, it includes the cost of repairing of the complainant's vehicle to the tune of Rs. 7,73,994.60. Since the cost of repairing of the complainant's vehicle is Rs.7,73,994-60/- and the truck of the complainant is insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-, therefore, the respondent Insurance Company may be ordered to make payment of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest. 

It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the Survey Report mentions only a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the complainant has prepared an inflated statement. 

In our opinion, the complainant has filed the statement as Document No. 5A/11 and 5A/12 of an authorized garage which is liable to be admitted. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive insured amount of the damage caused in the complainant's truck. The respondents by rejecting the claim of the complainant, have committed an act of deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint is liable to be partially allowed against the respondents.   

7.       After completion of entire proceedings of the complaint the District Commission was of the view that the complainant was entitled to receive the insured amount for the damage caused in the complainant’s truck and the rejection of the same is an act of deficiency in service.  In its conclusion the following award was made by the District Commission:-

The complaint of the complainant against the respondents is hereby partially allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the complainant and the respondents are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation towards the physical and mental agony and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint to the complainant. The aforesaid order may be complied with within a period of one month.  The respondents will be jointly and severally responsible for the compliance of the above order.

8.       Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Commission appeal was filed in the State Commission.  The perusal of the State Commission’s Order reveal that the facts and the evidence were again re-appreciated and weighed.  While making its re-appreciation of the evidence the gist of the State Commission’s order has been captured succinctly in its Order which may be usefully extracted hereinbelow:-

From the repudiation letter dated 4.5.2011, it is clear that the appellant insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of accident Mr. Kamaluddin Khan was driving the vehicle although the name of Mr. Asif Khan was provided in the claim form and affidavit of the complainant as driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident. 

On the other hand, the complaints that Mr. Asif Khan was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and his name also appears in the survey report of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company. In this way, the main point of controversy is that who in fact was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident because driving license of Mr. Asif Khan has been presented by the complainant before the surveyor Mr. Ram Vir Singh and in the survey report dated 26.3.2011 at column 8, it appears that driving license was checked by the surveyor and it was found in order. 

For finding this fact that who was actual driver at the time of said accident, we have gone through the documents submitted by both the parties. A copy of surveyor report dated 26.3.2011 has been submitted as annexure '3' of the complaint. In column 5 of the report the name and address of driver has been provided. In it the name of Mr. Asif Khan s/o Hamid Khan has been mentioned as driver of the vehicle whose driving license was checked and found in order by the surveyor. 

A copy of claim form has also been presented by the appellant insurance company in which admittedly, the name of driver has been mentioned that of Mr. Asif Khan. Thus, both the documents submitted by the appellant indicate that it was Mr. Asif Khan who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident per contra no cogent evidence has been submitted by the appellant insurance company which can unequivocally points out that Mr. Kamaluddin was in fact driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident.  

9.       After agreeing with the findings recorded by the District Commission the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission.

10.     Learned counsel while arguing on behalf of the petitioner has tried to take the Bench once again into the factual aspects of the case and has tried to submit that the appreciation of evidence as has been done by the two fora below is not sound and is improper, which has resulted in drawing wrong inferences against the petitioner. Once again learned counsel has tried to re-open the question as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and whether the evidence in that regard has been rightly appreciated or not. According to the learned counsel the interference drawn in this regard and the findings recorded ought to have been otherwise.  Learned counsel has also tried to submit that the loss estimated by the surveyor is a sanctified assessment and the fora below could not have ordered for any amount higher than that and the assessment of loss ought to have been made on the basis of the report of the surveyor alone and not on the basis of any other evidence or record or estimate furnished on behalf of the complainant.

11.     The Bench has considered the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has perused the record in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and finds that none of the submissions that have been raised relate to the aspects or questions of jurisdiction of fora below.  All the submissions that have been raised relate to the appreciation of evidence and findings of fact which are concurrent in nature.  Learned counsel has tried to persuade the Bench to re-open the entire factual matrix and to make our own re-appraisal of the evidence. 

12.   Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again in extensor. Suffice is to say that the Bench finds the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The Bench does not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings. The Bench also does not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision. The Bench finds no good ground for interference in the impugned Order while exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.  The Bench has also not been able to come across any streak of perversity in the findings nor has been able to discern any legal principle having been overlooked or wrongly ruled. Certainly the fora below cannot be castigated either to have overstepped or transgressed their respective jurisdiction or to have wrongly omitted to exercise the same rightfully. The facts and circumstances appear to have been weighed and vetted well and to the satisfaction of the Bench. (Refer: Order dated 08.09.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. & Anr. & Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269)

13.     The revision petition is dismissed.

14.     The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.