JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 7th of February, 2007 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 22nd of August, 2005 passed by respondent No. 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company submits that the orders impugned are factually and legally incorrect inasmuch as the same have been passed without appreciating the settled proposition of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to get any claim inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and only in view of this fact that the complainant’s claim had been repudiated as “No Claim”. 4. Learned counsel further states that immediately after getting the knowledge of alleged occurrence, the petitioner-Company without any delay deputed surveyor for assessment of the loss and as per Survey Report, an amount of Rs. 29,100/- was assessed as loss subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, the petitioner-company had written numerous letters to respondent No.1 to prove the necessary documents and satisfy the Company regarding the genuineness of the licence but the respondent No. 1 had failed to perform his part of contract. 5. Further it is stated that the petitioner-Company took necessary steps to get the licence of driver of the vehicle verified from Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Mandi (H.P) and as per the report, it came to the notice of the petitioner that licence No. 7871/M-85/86 has not been issued in the name of driver of the vehicle namely Suram singh. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that it is well settled that so far as liability of the insurance company vis-à-vis third party claim is concerned, the same is absolute even if the licence of the driver is found to be fake but with regard to recover the amount from the insured the law laid down by the Apex Court is to avoid hardships to the third parties who are not parties to the contract. In so far as own damage claims are concerned, in the event of invalid or fake of licence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured, who himself has contributed to the cause of occurrence. The Courts below have totally ignored this aspect of the matter and passed the orders impugned, which are on the fact of it, are outcome of exercise of jurisdiction, not vested in them and same are also perverse in the eye of law. The impugned orders are challenged, inter alia, on the following grounds: (i) That it has been settled at rest by the Apex Court that fake licence is fake and cannot be transformed or considered as genuine for the purposes of deciding the claims arising out of Motor Insurance Policies. However, it has been held by the Apex Court that so far as rights of third party is concerned, invalid or fake licence will not come in way in settling the claim or payment of compensation to the victims but in the event of payment of any liability, the insurance company is empowered to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. (ii) That the deficiency in service is sine qua non for invoking the jurisdiction under Consumer Forum and in the present case, both the Courts below failed to return finding on this aspect of matter which is pre requisite for invoking the jurisdiction. Not only this, as per settled law, once the claim has been repudiated with detailed reason, Forum lacks jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act to entertain the complaint. (iii) That as per law laid down by Apex Court in AIR 1993 SC 1454 titled Hira Lal Mool Chand Doshi Vs. Brot Raman Lal, admission of the party always stand on higher footing than its evidentiary value and is binding. In the present case, the positive case set up by respondent No.1 before both the Courts below is that licence of the driver of the vehicle was verified by him from the competent authorities before entrusting the vehicle but when the petitioner company got verified the licence, it was found to be fake, so the fact remains that respondent No.1 allowed the person possessing fake driving licence to ply the vehicle with due knowledge and there was a willful breach of the policy on his part. This aspect of the matter has also been ignored by respondent Nos.2 & 3. On the contrary, respondent No.2 passed the order impugned dated 07.02.2007 on the ground that petitioner company has failed to prove willful default on the part of respondent No.1. It is submitted that fact regarding verification of licence from the competent authority has been alleged and same ultimately proved to be false and this itself was sufficient to return a finding that there was a willful breach and suppression of facts. On this count also, writ as prayed for deserves to be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. The complainant-respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Divisional Forum, Jammu, under Section 10 of the J&K C.P. Act, which, by its order dated 22.8.2005, allowed the same and directed the insurance company-petitioner herein to pay Rs. 29,001/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from two months after date of report of surveyor (i.e. 4.5.1998) till its realization. The respondent-insurance company was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Thereafter, against the said order, the Insurance Company went in appeal before J&K State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jammu, which was also dismissed. 9. Both the Divisional Forum, Jammu and J&K State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jammu have recorded a finding that the insurance company has failed to prove the fact that the insured-respondent No. 1 was having the knowledge that the driver has a fake licence and he deliberately employed the driver and as such, there is no contravention or violation of any terms and conditions of the policy. They have also observed that the repudiation of claim of the complainant was in-genuine one. 10. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company that both the orders impugned in the present petition are factually and legally incorrect as driver was holding a fake license; this argument is legally not tenable, because it was fact which was required to be proved before Divisional Forum by producing cogent evidence, which insurance company has failed to prove. There is concurrent finding of two forums below. 11. There is concurrent finding of two forums below. 11. In Waryam Singh And Another vs. Amarnath And Another reported in 1954 AIR 215 ( 1954 SCR 565 ), a constitution Bench of Apex Court has held that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 should be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. Relevant para reads: “This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227, as pointed out by Harries C. J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee (2), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.” 12. In present case, it is not the case of petitioner that both Forums Below passed the order without jurisdictions. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.