This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 02.05.2019 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘the State Commission’) in FA no. 1235 of 2014.

2.     The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the respondent’s truck met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy and the claim was filed by stating that Harkul Singh was driving the truck who has an endorsement in his licence for driving the hazardous goods. An FIR was lodged, whereas the police filed the charge-sheet against Mr Bhawani Singh, the accused, as driver. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the grounds that Bhawani Singh was the driver at the time of the accident and there is no endorsement in the licence of Mr Bhawani Singh to drive the hazardous goods. A consumer complaint bearing no. 305 of 2012 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhuj, Kutch (‘the District Forum’). The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the same grounds as given in the repudiation letter. However, the District Forum has allowed the complaint. The operative portion of the District Forum’s order reads as under:

“The complaint of the plaintiff is allowed as under. The defendant is hereby directed to pay the plaintiff Rs.1,23,483/- as per the report of the surveyor, and Rs.1825/- paid to the surveyor as fee within one month from the date of this order, and if the said amount is not paid within one month, the amount will have to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of this order and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation towards the physical and mental harassment that the plaintiff has suffered and Rs.3000/- as cost of the application”.

3.      The insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 02.05.2019. The State Commission have taken the ground that the truck was damaged from the driver’s side and there was serious injury to Mr Harkul Singh and there was no injury to Mr Bhawani Singh. Both the fora below have gone by the common sense as the truck was damaged on the front side of the driver seat and the person driving the vehicle may have been injured, therefore, both the fora below have decided that the vehicle was being driven by Mr Harkul Singh at the time of the accident who had the relevant endorsement in the driving licence, therefore, the claim was allowed. Learned counsel states that the orders cannot be passed based on common sense, rather it is to be based on evidence and the only evidence is that the police after their investigation, charge sheeted Bhawani Singh, as he was driving the truck at the time of accident. Thus, the orders of the fora below are not based on actual evidence.

4.     I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. There is a delay of 22 days in filing the present revision petition. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the revision petition. As the delay is less than one month, the delay is condoned. Coming to the merits of the case, the Bench requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to state whether there are any statements given either by Harkul Singh or Bhawani Singh before the police or before the investigator appointed by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel replied that the police has already filed charge sheet against Mr Bhawani Singh and therefore, it is clear that the police investigation has found that the vehicle was being driven by Bhawani Singh and not by Harkul Singh.

5.     I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined record. All these documents were available with the fora below and the fora below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the vehicle was being driven by Harkul Singh as he was seriously injured and the vehicle was also damaged from the front side of the driver seat. Against the concurrent finding of facts the scope under the Revision petition is quite limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has under:

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”  

6.     Had there been any statement of any of the drivers given to the police or investigator there would have been some ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the fora below. In the absence of such statements it is difficult to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the fora below. The facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission at the stage of the revision petition against the concurrent finding of fact given by the fora below. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition filed by the petitioner and consequently, the revision petition no. 1986 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage.