This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Haryana Panchkula in First Appeal No. 61 of 2012 dated14.09.2012 whereby the State Commission accepted the appeal against the impugned order and dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent opposite party. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Ajit Singh filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Forum alleging that he insured his truck no. HR-38E-8832 alongwith risk of driver-cum-owner vide insurance policy effective w.e.f. 21.08.2009 to 20.8.2010. Unfortunately on 27.03.2010 Virender @ Vijender son of the complainant who is claimed to be the driver of the truck fell down from the truck while trying to remove the spare wheel from the tool box. Consequently, he sustained fatal injury and died at the spot. The complainant submitted the insurance claim in respect of death of his son which was repudiated by the respondent insurance company. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complainant filed consumer complaint in the District Forum. 3. The respondent insurance company contested the complaint on the ground that son of the complainant has not died due to accident caused by the truck. It was alleged that on receipt of the claim Surveyor was appointed who visited the village of the complainant and recorded statements of Ram Mehar and Mr.Rajbir Singh. The investigation revealed that Virender @ Vijender at the relevant time was suffering from giddiness. Consequently he became unconscious and fell down from the truck and died. It was alleged that such a death is not covered under the policy. It was alleged in the written statement that Surveyor contacted the village chowkidar and asked for the death register in order to find out the actual cause of death but the request of the Surveyor was declined. Post mortem of the dead body was not conducted. As such the cause of death is not established. On the aforesaid allegations, it was averred that the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency in service. 4. The District Forum on consideration of evidence vide its order dated 08.12.2011 came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and allowed the complaint. The respondent was directed to pay to the complainant the insured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- within 60 days failing which it was directed that 9% interest shall be payable from the date of filing of complaint till realization of full amount. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after notice to the complainant and on consideration of the record accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order with following observations: rom the perusal of record, it is crystal clear that deceased Virender @ Vijender had got insured his truck alongwith risk of driver-cum-owner with the opposite party. As per version of the complainant his son Virender fell down from the truck and died at the spot. A perusal of investigation report dated 05.05.2011 reveals that one Majbir Singh neighbour of the complainant has given his statement that said Virender suffering from giddiness due to which he fell down from the truck and felt unconscious. It is not a case of accidental death and thus the claim submitted by the complainant was not covered under the policy. Moreover the complainant has failed to prove on record the cause of death of deceased Virender. No evidence has been led by the complainant that it was accidental death. Neither the FIR/DDR has been got recorded in the police station with respect to alleged incident nor post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Virender was got conducted. In the absence thereof the opposite party have rightly treated the claim submitted by the complainant as o Claim Even otherwise the present complaint has been filed by the father of the deceased Virender alias Vijender, who is not class-I legal heir and thus the first right to file the complaint was only of class-I legal heir. Since the class-I legal heirs of deceased are alive, the father of the deceased has no right to file the present complaint. The District Forum has failed to consider the actual controversy involved in this case and committed grave error while accepting the complaint and as such the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of the State Commission is not sustainable because it has been passed ignoring the resolution of Gram Panchayat Nidana, Jind dated 12.05.2010 as also the complaint submitted by the Gram Panchayat at PS Julana. 7. We are not convinced with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat resolution relied upon by the petitioner is dated 12.05.2010. On perusal of this resolution, we find that it is not based upon any evidence but it is result of meeting held by the Panchayat. The so called police report is also based upon this resolution. In absence of death certificate or any evidence in relation to the cause of death no reliance can be placed upon the resolution of Gram Panchayat which is the basis of lodging complaint with the police. On going through the above noted order of the State Commission, we find that it is well reasoned order based upon the evidence produced by the parties. We do not find any legal infirmity or flaw in the aforesaid order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Otherwise also, if the allegation of the complainant is that his son Vijender fell down from the truck while removing the stepney from the tool box is taken to be correct then also the cause of death of Vijender Singh is the accident fall and it is not as a result of accident caused by the truck. Therefore, in our view the respondent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. In view of the discussion above, we do not find merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed.