Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition. 

Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant insured her tanker with the respondent insurance company.  On 9.12.2002, during the currency of the insurance policy, the said tanker met with an accident while carrying supply of high-speed diesel for Bhawa Nagar Project.  Respondent insurance company was informed about the same.  Later, the petitioner submitted her claim with the insurance company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the driver, who was driving the tanker at the fateful moment, did not have a proper driving licence.  According to the complainant, Riyaz Mohammed was driving the vehicle but as per the version of the respondent insurance company, Riyaz Mohammed was not driving the vehicle.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that Riyaz Mohammed was not driving the vehicle. 

          Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.  State Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum and came to the conclusion that Riyaz Mohammed was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time.

          Although this is a finding of fact, the counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it was Riyaz Mohammed, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time; that he possessed a valid driving licence.  This contention cannot be accepted in view of the affidavit filed by Riyaz Mohammed.  In para-3 of his affidavit, he has stated that “the deponent was not driving vehicle No.HP40-5188 on 9.2.2002 when it met with accident near Village Sainj on Shimla Rampur Road”.  Counsel for the petitioner then contended that in the criminal proceedings initiated against Riyaz Mohammed, he had confessed his involvement in the accident.  This has been explained by Riyaz Mohammed in para-6 of his affidavit by stating as under :

“That the deponent was assured that his salary amounting to Rs.50,000/- will be given to him in case he confess his involvement in the accident of vehicle and the deponent was forced to make false statement earlier by Smt. Nirmal Sethi.  A statement was also made to Sh. G.D. Gagat of Insurance Co.”.

          In view of the categorical statement made by Riyaz Mohammed in his affidavit before the consumer fora that he was not driving the vehicle which met with the accident on the fateful day and the explanation given by him for the statement made by him in the criminal proceedings, it cannot be held that Riyaz Mohammed was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.  We also agree with the line of reasoning taken by the State Commission in Para-11 and 13 of the said order, which reads as under ;

“11. After having considered respective submissions coupled with the documents placed on record by both the parties, we find that plea urged on behalf of the appellant that it was Riyaz Mohammed who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident is, factually untrue and incorrect.  Admittedly, vehicle had gone into river Sutlej at Village Sainj near Ramur Bushahar.  Though FIR was lodged, but the vehicle was taken out after a few days of the accident.  What happened to Riyaz Mohammed if he was driving the said vehicle?  In this behalf when a reference is made to the certified copies of the statements of prosecution witnesses, copies whereof are produced on the record by the respondent, these clearly indicate that when the vehicle had sunk into the river its top could hardly be seen and there was nothing else.

12…………………..

13. Riyaz Mohammed has clearly stated in his affidavit as also in the statement recorded with the investigator, that after having loaded the truck from Ambala, at Parwanoo he had a dispute with the Manager of the appellant regarding payment of wages and daily expenses etc.  When the Manager of the appellant did not agree to pay, he handed over the keys of the vehicle to the Manager of the appellant who then hired a local driver and then drove the vehicle to Rampur Bushahar when it met with accident.  He handed over the vehicle a day before the accident i.e. 8.12.2002 to the Manager of the appellant.  There is no rebuttal to this effect, and according to us this goes to the root of the case.  As such, we find no infirmity with the order of the District Forum below.”

          We do not find any error in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.