We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner, has been dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT at Chandigarh (for short the District Forum) has been affirmed.  The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even before the Petitioner repudiated the claim preferred by the Complainant, the Complaint was filed.  He invited our attention to the letter dated 13.05.2016 filed at page-86 of the paper-book, wherein the Petitioner has asked the Complainant to provide certain documents.  In that letter, a specific mention has been made that the Complainant has made claim petition on 15.07.2015 regarding the destruction of the insured vehicle. 

We may mention here that the Complaint was filed on 10.03.2016.  On a query being put to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner had taken any steps to ask the Complainant to provide any documents prior to filing of the Complaint or prior to 13.05.2016, i.e. the date of the letter relied upon by the Petitioner, Learned Counsel could not give any reply.  We, therefore, take it that prior to 13.05.2016 the Petitioner had not even taken any steps to ask the Complainant to provide any documents and, therefore, it cannot be expected of an insured person to wait indefinitely before taking recourse to the legal remedies available to such a person. 

So far as the second contention that the driver of the vehicle was having a driving licence issued by the Government of Nagaland in a booklet form and vide Notification dated 01.08.2014 the Government of Nagaland had directed that all driving licences issued in the booklet form shall cease to have any effect from 01.12.2014 and only those driving licences, which have been issued in the smart card, would be valid and, therefore, the driving licence held by the driver of the insured vehicle was not a valid license.

The submission is wholly misconceived.  The State Commission has recorded the following finding regarding the driving license, which is reproduced below:

“8.      The Forum has noticed very clearly that at no point of time driving licence issued to the deceased Baldev Singh was declared fake.  General notification issued cannot be taken against him.  Otherwise also, photocopy of the driving licence available at page 74 of the complaint file makes it clear that it is not in a booklet form rather it is in the shape of smartcard.  In view of the above, argument raised to the contrary stands settled and accordingly the appeal deserves dismissal.” 

Thus, the State Commission has recorded a categorical finding on the basis of material on record that the driver of the insured vehicle was having a driving licence in the form of a smart card and, therefore, the licence was valid.

In view of the findings recorded by the State Commission, which are based on appreciation of evidence and material on record, the order passed by the State Commission does not require interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.