Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra, Avsm, Vsm

This Revision Petition No. 241 of 2018 challenges the order of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla ('the State Commission') dated 04.12.2017m vide which the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No. 116/2017 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, H.P ('the District Forum') dated 19.01.2017.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is the registered owner of Taxi Regn No. HP-01K-3851. He insured the vehicle with the Opposite Party (OP) insurer and the policy was valid up to 24.12.2014. The insured vehicle had met with a serious accident on 21.12.2013 near Army Transit Camp, Jhakri, Shimla, resulting in total loss of the vehicle. It is his contention that on reporting the incident, the damaged vehicle was inspected by the OP appointed surveyor, and all documents as demanded were duly submitted. Despite compliance with all policy terms and conditions, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid and effective Driving License at the time of the accident. He contended that the claim repudiation is arbitrary, illegal, and amounts to deficiency in service by OP. The Complainant thus sought direction to OP to pay Rs. 6,00,000 towards the total loss of the vehicle along with interest @ 18% per annum, damages of Rs. 7,00,000 for mental agony, harassment, and financial loss caused due to non-settlement of the claim.

4. On being issued notice, the OP filed written version contending that the Complainant has no cause of action and no locus standi to file this complaint. He obtained insurance coverage under a Private Car Package Policy and the insured vehicle was registered and used as a Taxi/Transport Vehicle, thereby violating the policy conditions. The claim was repudiated strictly in accordance with law and policy conditions. The OP contended that at the time of the accident, the driver, namely Shri Tilak Raj, was found to have 98.33 mg of ethyl alcohol in his blood, which is far beyond the permissible limit, rendering the driver unfit and constituting a fundamental breach of the policy conditions. The OP sought for dismissal of the Complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide order dated 19.01.2017, allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party as under:

                   "13. Since the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant without any legal substance, which amounted to deficiency in service. Consequently, the present complaint is allowed to the effect that the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 4,60,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the actual payment.

                   14. Since the complainant was forced to file the present complaint, hence, the opposite party is further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant. The salvage of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01K-3851 shall remain the property of the complainant. With these observations, the present. complaint stands disposed of."

6. Being aggrieved by the above order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal and the State Commission, vide order dated 04.12.20217 dismissed the said Appeal with the following observations:

                   "5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.

                   6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.

                   1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.

                   2. Final order.

                   Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:

                   7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is registered owner of vehicle having registration No. HP-01K-3851. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was insured with the insurance company till 24.12.2014. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle of deponent met with accident on 21.12.2013 near Army Transit Camp Jhakri. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has submitted all the documents to insurance company alongwith original bills. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company did not pay the amount on the ground that driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. There is recital in affidavit that relief be granted to deponent as prayed in the relief clause.

                   8. Insurance company did not adduce any evidence qua proof of controversial facts by way of affidavits as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of insurance company namely C.L. Sharma has given statement before learned District Forum at the bar on dated 09.12.2015 that insurance company does not want to adduce any evidence. Learned advocate submitted that documents already adduced at the time of version be read in evidence.

                   9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have perused registration certificate of vehicle No.HP-01K-3851 issued by Registering authority, Kullu. As per R.C. unladen weight of vehicle was 1540 Kg. We have also perused extract of driving licence issued by licensing authority annexure-R8. As per annexure-R8 driver was competent to drive non-transport LMV vehicle w.e.f. 28.09.2013. As per section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 LMV vehicle means a transport vehicle unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. In the present case unladen weight of vehicle was 1540 Kg hence it is held that vehicle falls within the definition of LMV vehicle and it is held that driver was legally competent to drive vehicle involved in the accident. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that driver having licence to drive LMV could drive LMV transport vehicle also. See AIR 2017 SC 3668 titled Mukund Devgan Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

                   10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that at the time of accident 98.33 mg of ethyl alcohol was found in the blood of driver and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Onus to prove fact that 98.33 mg of ethyl alcohol was found in the blood of driver was upon insurance company. Learned advocate appeared on behalf of insurance company has given statement before learned District Forum on dated 09.12.2015 that insurance company does not want adduce any evidence. Operative part of order dated 09.12.2015 passed by learned District Forum is quoted in toto:-

                   09.12.2015 Present: Sh. Rajender Thakur, Advocate Ld. Counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. C. L. Sharma Advocate Ld. Counsel for opposite party.

                   The Ld. Counsel for opposite party stated at the bar that no evidence is intended to be adduced. Documents already adduced at the time of reply be read in evidence.

                   Sd/-President.

                   Sd/-Member.

                   11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that as per final report submitted by investigation agency in FIR No.60/2013 dated prove contents of document. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi-judicial proceedings. It is held that report filed by SHO under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not perse admissible in evidence under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence plea of insurance company is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof).

                   12. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that as per report submitted by State Forensic Science Laboratory H.P. Junga annexure-R5 98.33% mg of ethyl alcohol was found in blood sample of by driver and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance Company did not file affidavit of Assistant Director Dr. V.S. Jamwal who has submitted the report in order to prove contents of document. No reason assigned by Insurance company as to why affidavit of Dr.V.S. Jamwal was not filed by insurance company under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in order to prove controversial facts i.e. report of State Forensic Science Laboratory H.P. Junga. It is held that report submitted by State Forensic Science Laboratory H.P. Junga was not perse admissible under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is also well settled law that report submitted under section 293 of Cr.P.C by Government Scientific expert could 21.12.2013 under section 175 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 98.33 mg% ethyl alcohol was found in the blood sample of driver and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is held that SHO police station has submitted report under section 173 of Cr.P.C in criminal case under section 279, 377 and 338 of IPC registered in police station Jhakri District Shimla H.P. Opposite party did not file affidavit of SHO P.S. Jhakri as required under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to proof contents of report submitted under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure qua controversial facts. It is well settled law that report submitted by police agency under Section 173 of Cr.P.C is not admissible for any purpose as per section 162 of Code of Procedure 1973 except to contradict the witness by prosecution or defence under section 145 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Hence it is held that report submitted by SHO Police Station Jhakri is not helpful to insurance company in the present consumer complaint in any manner because under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 document should be produced as evidence which is producible as evidence. It is well settled law that contents of documents are producible as evidence only by way of affidavit of a person who has signed the document. Insurance company did not file affidavit of SHO who has filed report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure in order to be used as evidence only in inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 only. It is well settled law that contents of documents are producible as evidence only by way of affidavit of a person who has signed the document under Consumer Protection Act 1986 qua controversial facts and evidence qua document could be produced under Consumer Protection Act 1986 strictly as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi civil judicial proceedings. It is held that report submitted by State Forensic Science Laboratory Himachal Pradesh Junga under section 293 Cr.P.C is perse admissible only in criminal proceedings under Code of Criminal Procedure and is not perse admissible in Procedure quasi civil judicial proceedings under Consumer Protection e Act 1986. No reason assigned by insurance company as to ta why insurance company did not file affidavit of Dr. V.S. Jamwal Assistant Director as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in order to prove controversial fact. Hence plea of insurance company is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made A without proof).

                   13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that as per medical certificate issued by Dr. Rajesh Rana annexure-R6 driver Tilak Raj had consumed alcohol at the time of accident and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Insurance Company did not file affidavit of Dr. Rajesh Rana in order to prove contents of medical certificate issued by Dr. Rajesh Rana. It is held that Dr. Rajesh Rana has issued medical certificate in criminal proceedings only. It is held that medical certificate issued in criminal proceedings is not per-se admissible in quasi civil judicial proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986. No reason assigned by insurance company as to why insurance company did not file affidavit of Dr. Rajesh Rana in order to prove contents of medical certificate placed on record qua controversial facts. It is held that contents of document could be proved under Consumer of affidavit of person who has Protection Act 1986 by way because proceedings under Consumer signed Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings and evidence qua document could be produced qua controversial facts strictly as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence plea of insurance company is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof).

                   14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that insurance company had appointed investigator Shri Ramesh Kumar Thakur Advocate and he has submitted investigation report and as per investigation report Tilak Raj driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Onus to prove report of Ramesh Kumar Thakur Advocate was upon insurance company. It is well settled law that contents of document could be produced by way of affidavit of person who has signed document. Insurance company did not file affidavit of Ramesh Kumar as required under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in order to prove controversial facts. On the contrary learned advocate appeared on behalf of insurance company has given statement before learned District Forum that insurance company does not want to file any evidence by way of affidavits as mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts. Hence plea of insurance company that driver Tilak Raj was under the influence of liquor is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof).

                   15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) on higher side and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We are of the opinion that complainant has to engage advocate and has to incur the expenditure of litigation charges hence it is held that compensation awarded by learned District Forum to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) is not excessive in nature but reasonable in nature. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the compensation awarded by learned District Forum.

                   16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing behalf of insurance company that learned District Forum has granted 9% interest on higher side is decided accordingly. It is held that learned District Forum has granted reasonable interest and it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the interest rate awarded by learned District Forum.

                   17. It is proved on record that present consumer complaint was filed by complainant against insurance company through its Divisional Manager Divisional Office Mandi District Mandi H.P. Divisional Manager did not file personal affidavit in order to prove controversial facts as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that affidavit filed in support of version could not be treated as evidence relating to controversial facts as per mode mentioned under Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 because it is well settled law that affidavit filed in support of version and affidavit filed qua controversial facts under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 are entirely two different concept under law. Hence adverse inference is drawn against insurance company for non filing of affidavit of Divisional Manager qua controversial facts. See AIR 1999 SC 1441 titled Vidyadhar Versus Mankik Rao s Anr. See AIR 1999 SC 1341 titled Ishwar Bhai C. Patel Versus Harihar Bahera.

                   18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that insurance company has hired service of surveyor cum loss assessor namely Mehinder K. Sharma. It is proved on record that Mohinder K. Sharma has assessed total loss to the tune of Rs.566451/- (Five lac sixty six thousand four hundred fifty one). It is proved on record that surveyor cum loss assessor appointed by insurance company has deducted amount of salvage to the tune of Rs.105451/-(One lac five thousand four hundred fifty one) and also reduced excess amount to the tune of Rs. 1000/-(One thousand). It is proved on record that surveyor cum loss assessor has recommended the damage to the tune of Rs.460000/-(Four lac sixty thousand). It is held that surveyor cum loss assessor was appointed by insurance company and insurance company cannot be allowed to disbelieve the report of surveyor cum loss/assessor appointed by insurance company. It is well settled law that report submitted by surveyor cum loss assessor is substantive piece of evidence. Sec 2012(1) CPJ 420 NC H.C Saxena Versus New India Assurance Company See 2009(3) CPJ 194 NC Nand Kishore Jaiswal Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2012(4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Jyothi Tobacco Traders. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

                   Point No. 2: Final Order

                   19. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum announced in C.C. No. 06/2015 decided on 19.01.2017 titled Kanti Lal Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. is affirmed. Report submitted by Mohinder K. Sharma annexure-R1 and statement given by learned advocate appeared on behalf of insurance company before learned District Forum dated 09.12.2015 to the effect that opposite party does not intend to adduce any evidence by way of affidavits qua controversial facts as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of."

7. Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/OP has filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no.241 of 2018.

8. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner reiterated the grounds in the Revision Petition and asserted that the Order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the State Commission, affirming the District Forum Order dated 19.01.2017 affirming the claim of the Complainant was despite clear and cogent evidence establishing breach of statutory provisions and policy conditions. The claim arose out of an accident involving the insured vehicle, which was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 16.12.2014 since at the time of the accident, the driver was under the influence of alcohol far beyond the permissible limit, as conclusively proved by the Forensic Science Laboratory report that 98.33 mg% of alcohol was found against the statutory limit of 38 mg% under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This was never disputed by the Complainant. Further, during police investigation, it was found that the driver was holding two driving licenses and not possessing a valid and effective driving license at that time, attracting offences under Sections 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and a challan under Section 173 Cr. PC was presented. Clause 2(c) of the policy expressly excludes liability where the vehicle is driven under influence of liquor or drugs. Thus, OP was legally justified in claim repudiation. However, the District Forum erroneously held the OP liable to pay the claim, and the State Commission further erred in upholding the same, disregarding admitted evidence, including FSL report, investigation records and binding legal principles. The impugned order is perverse, contrary to law and policy terms and is patently illegal and needs to be set aside. He relied upon Dharampal Vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd. I (2013) CPJ 150 (NC); Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Davubhai Babubhai Ravaliya, RP No.1296 of 2019, decided on 04.09.2018 by NCDRC; IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 704; and V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513.

9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant argued that this Revision Petition is filed without any cogent reason and solely with the intent to harass the Complainant. The well-reasoned order dated 04.12.2017 by the State Commission is based on facts and settled position of law and no interference is warranted. The Complainant is the owner of a taxi Regn No. HP-01K-3851, duly insured by OP under valid policy up to 24.12.2014, and the said vehicle met with an accident on 21.12.2013 near Army Transit Camp, Jhakri, resulting in a total loss, which was duly inspected by the surveyor. All requisite documents, including the driving license of the driver were supplied. OP repudiated the claim on false and untenable ground that the driver did not possess a valid license, though the license was genuine and valid. The Complainant additionally incurred expenses for vehicle recovery. His plea regarding license validity stands conclusively negated by settled law. The OP consciously chose not to adduce any evidence before the District Forum as recorded on 09.12.2015 and failed to file mandatory affidavits under Section 13(4) of the Act, 1986, rendering reliance on unproved reports inadmissible and amounting to mere ipse dixit. The concurrent findings of both the fora are based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. He sought the Revision Petition be dismissed and relied on Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi and Ors., SLP (C) No.19992 of 2023, decided on 30.10.2023 by Hon'ble Supreme Court; Nirmala Kothari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., CA Nos.1999-2000 of 2020, decided on 04.03.2020 by Hon'ble Supreme Court; Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr., CA No.432 of 2022, decided on 21.02.2022 by Hon'ble Supreme Court; Kalinga Eye Hospital & Research Centre vs. Bhabagrahi Sahu & Anr, RP No.596 of 2022 decided on 14.12.2023 by NCDRC; Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, (2017) 14 SCC 663; Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr. v. M/s Tejas Co-operative Housing Society, (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 143; Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. V. Shrinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC); State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jai Lal & Ors., Appeal (Crl.) 530 of 1997, decided on 13.09.1999 by Hon'ble Supreme Court; and Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Amarama & Anr., F.A. No.594/2022, decided on 07.07.2025 by NCDRC.

10. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

11. The principal issue for consideration in the present Revision Petition is whether the concurrent findings recorded by the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission suffer from any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986. At the outset, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely narrow. Interference is permissible only where there is a manifest miscarriage of justice, gross mis-appreciation or misreading of evidence, or findings that are perverse or wholly unsupported by the material on record. This Commission cannot assume the role of a second appellate authority by re-appreciating evidence or substituting its own conclusions merely because an alternative view is possible.

12. In this case, both the fora below have concurrently returned findings of fact to the effect that the OP Insurer failed to discharge its burden of proving breach of policy conditions. It is an admitted position on record that, despite being afforded a specific opportunity, the OP consciously chose not to lead any evidence by way of Affidavits under Section 13(4) of the Act, 1986, as recorded by the District Forum in order dated 09.12.2015. The claim repudiation was primarily based on the allegations that the driver of the insured vehicle was under the influence of alcohol and not holding a valid driving licence. However, OP failed to establish these allegations in accordance with law. Neither the Forensic Science Laboratory report, nor the medical certificate, nor police investigation report was proved by filing affidavits of the respective authors, as required in quasi-judicial proceedings under the Act. In the absence of providing such proof, reliance on unproved documents amounts to mere ipse dixit and cannot be sustained.

13. The learned State Commission rightly held that reports prepared during criminal proceedings, including those under Sections 173 and 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are not per se admissible in consumer proceedings unless duly proved in the manner known to law. The failure of the Petitioner to examine the concerned officials or to file their affidavits justifiably attracts an adverse inference against it. As regards the issue of Driving Licence, the finding of the learned State Commission that the vehicle in question falls within the category of Light Motor Vehicle and that the driver possessed a valid licence is squarely supported by the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663. The said finding is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference. Further, the assessment of loss at Rs. 4,60,000/- is based on the report of the surveyor appointed by the OP itself. It is settled law that a surveyor's report constitutes a substantive piece of evidence, and in the absence of any cogent reason or contrary material, the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to disown or disregard its own surveyor's assessment.

14. The award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, as granted by the learned District Forum and affirmed by the learned State Commission, cannot be termed as excessive or arbitrary, particularly considering the prolonged harassment suffered by the Respondent due to the unjustified repudiation of a legitimate claim.

15. The judgments relied upon by the OP do not advance its case, as the same are clearly distinguishable on facts and pertain to circumstances where breach of policy conditions had been duly proved by legally admissible evidence, which is conspicuously absent in the present matter.

16. The scope of revisional jurisdiction stands well delineated. Reliance is also placed upon the ratio laid down in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. Further, in Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022, decided on 21.01.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

                   "9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required...."

17. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 has held that:-

                   As per Section 21(b) of the Act the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion and after due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 04.12.2017 passed in First Appeal No. 116 of 2017 by the learned State Commission. The concurrent findings are well reasoned, founded on proper appreciation of law and evidence, and warrant no interference in exercise of revisional powers. Accordingly, Revision Petition No. 241 of 2018 is dismissed.

19. The parties shall bear their own costs. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.