(IN CHAMBER) This review application has been filed under section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant Shakir Ali, seeking review of the order dated 06.03.2017, passed by this Commission in RP No. 819/201, “Oriental Insurance Company vs. Shakir Ali & Anr.,” vide which, the said revision petition was allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum were set aside and the consumer complaint filed by the review applicant was ordered to be dismissed. The complainant had claimed compensation from the Opposite Party (OP) Insurance Company for damage to his truck in an accident. It was held that the Insurance company was not liable to pay the claim to the complainant/owner of the vehicle, since the licence possessed by the person driving the vehicle at the time of the incident, was found to be a fake document. 2. It has been stated in the review application that following the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by this Commission, the review applicant/complainant challenged the same by way of SLP No. 13953/2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However, the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as per their order dated 04.05.2017, which states as follows:- “Heard. We do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 3. The review applicant/complainant filed a review petition (C) No. 2287/2017 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, seeking review of the above order dated 04.05.2017. However, the said review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2017, which states as follows:- “We have perused the Review Petition and record of the special leave petition and are convinced that the order of which review has been sought, does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 4. The review applicant/complainant has now taken the plea in his application that even after the dismissal of the SLP as well as the review petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, his right to seek review of the order dated 06.03.2017 survives. The review applicant has stated that the vehicle in question got fire due to mechanical reasons and hence, the person driving the vehicle had no role to play in the matter. The complainant was, therefore, liable to be paid the claim for damage to the vehicle in terms of the insurance policy, even if the driver did not possess a proper driving licence. The review applicant/complainant has mentioned the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Jitendra Kumar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.” [(2003) 6 SCC 420], saying that the said view had been upheld in another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. vs. Swaran Singh” [2004 (3) SCC 297]”. 5. The matter has been examined again at length and the record of the revision petition has been gone through. In the order dated 06.03.2017, which is under review, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Co. vs. Swaran Singh” (supra) has been discussed and it has been brought out that the said judgment related to third-party claims only and had no application in own-damage claims. The order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “United India Insurance Company vs. Davinder Singh [2007 (8) SCC 698]” and the order passed in the case, “National Insurance Co. vs. Harbhajan Lal [Civil Appeal No. 3501/2004 decided on 16.09.2008]” have also been relied upon, while passing the order dated 06.03.2017, in which it was held that the claim was not payable, if the person driving the vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence. 6. As stated in the review application itself, the order dated 06.03.2017 has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their order passed in the SLP as well as in the review petition. This review application is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by this Commission in RP No. 819 / 2016 is upheld. | 
