Heard. 2. The District Forum appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 23.01.2015 allowed the complaint, directing the opposite party – insurance co. to pay the insured value of the stolen truck (Rs. 13,50,000/-) to the complainant – truck owner along with interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of Rs. 5,000/- with a stipulation that if the stolen vehicle was found in future its ownership in whatever condition shall be of the opposite party – insurance co. 3. The opposite party – insurance co. appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission also appraised the evidence and through a reasoned Order dated 16.04.2018 dismissed the appeal. 4. This revision has been filed by the opposite party under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 16.04.2018 of the State Commission. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, and perused the record. 6. Section 21 (b) of the Act is as below: …..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 a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 7. The State Commission’s Order dated 16.04.2018 is well-reasoned. After re-appraising the evidence, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum. Grave error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, is not visible. On the face of it, a jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is not visible. 8. There is no reason evident to interfere with the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. 9. The revision petition is dismissed. | 
