Heard counsel for the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the driving licence of the driver of the complainant was renewed upto 3.3.2000 as can be seen from letter dated 19.10.2000 of the RTO, Pune which is at page 28 of the record. According to him, the licence which was

-2-

produced by the driver of the complainant was a forged licence. He also submits that the licence produced shows that it was issued for two years whereas the RTO issues the licence for three years.

The District Forum had allowed the claim of the complainant on the basis of loss assessed by the Surveyor and directions were given to pay a sum of Rs.2,13,310/- as assessed by the Surveyor with 12% interest thereon from 19.4.2000. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission with an application for condonation of delay for 60 days. The State Commission rejected the condonation application. In this respect it is necessary to record the findings of the State Commission in paragraphs-3 & 4 of the impugned order, which are as under: -

“In the condonation application, the appellant admits delay of 60 days in filing the appeal. It is their case that upon receipt of the impugned order, the branch manager of Ponda branch forwarded the same to the Divisional Office for further action. The latter than forwarded the same to the Mumbai Regional Office as per internal procedure. The company conveyed its decision to prefer an appeal in the matter to the Divisional Office in Goa and thereafter necessary steps were taken. The whole procedure took time which resulted in the delay.

-3-

We heard Ld. Advocate. Shri V. Lotlikar and Ld. Advocate. Shri S. Ramnathkar on behalf of the parties for some time. The appellant is required to satisfy this Commission that there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. However, the appellant has not shown any sufficient cause for the delay; in fact, we find that the matter has been dealt with in a casual and nonchalant manner. The specific dates on which the file was allegedly sent by the Ponda branch to the Divisional Office and from there to the Regional Office and back to the Divisional Office are left to this Commission to fathom.”

          In fact, the State Commission has very rightly held that no sufficient cause has been shown and detailed reasons have been given in paragraph-4 of the order of the State Commission and I have no reason whatsoever to take a different view of the matter. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

          Nevertheless, I have heard counsel for the parties on merits of the matter. The complainant had produced the driving licence of the driver before the District Forum which is at page 25 and 26 of the record. The driving licence shows that it has been renewed from 13.3.2000 to 12.3.2002. The accident in question took place on 19.4.2000. Simply because the RTO has sent a letter dated 19.10.2000  upon  which  reliance  is  placed  by  counsel  for  the

-4-

petitioner, it does not mean that the licence produced by the complainant is a forged licence. In fact, the Insurance Company should have made a request to the District Forum in case the plea of the Insurance Company was that it was a forged document that the said licence be referred to the RTO for confirmation whether the licence was renewed or not. This was not done by the Insurance Company. Therefore, even on merits I do not find that the petitioner has any case since the claim was repudiated on the said ground.

          For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this revision. The revision is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.