Present Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant who had insured his truck with the respondent insurance company for the period 24.6.1997 to 23.6.1998.  The said vehicle met with an accident on 16.1.1998.  Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.65,057/-.  Respondent insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.  Fora below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the person who was driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident.  State Commission, in para 11 of its order, has recorded the following finding :

“It may further be noticed that if it was held by the District Forum after detailed discussion of the matter that Sukhit Ram Yadav was the driver of the vehicle and his driving licence was not found to be duly issued by a competent authority and appeared to be a forgery.  It also appears that two different copies of licences of Sukhit Ram Yadav have been filed in the complaint case, which again render the genuineness of the licence highly doubtful.  Moreover, a person cannot legally hold two different licences at the same time.  It therefore, appears that licences are forged one or were obtained illegally.  It also appears that the vehicle in question was a dumper and was not permitted to carry any passenger while from the material placed on record, it is amply clear that many passengers were traveling therein and thus the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms of the policy.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Otherwise also, the finding recorded is a concurrent finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the National Commission, in revision, can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised a 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.

          We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.