PER MR.JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMEBR Heard counsel for the Petitioner. The husband of the Petitioner had taken four insurance policies with accidental benefit. Her husband was murdered in respect of which the accused were tried by the 4th Additional Session Judge, Gooty. The Session Judge convicted seven accused involved in the case. The Session Judge found that the murder had been committed on account of faction fight between the two groups of the village one of which was supported by the husband of the Petitioner. The District Forum had, in fact, directed the Insurance Company to pay accidental benefit under the four policies. The said order was challenged by the Respondent-Insurance Company before the State Commission. The Insurance Company had taken the plea that it was not a case of accidental murder and as such the Petitioner was not entitled to accidental benefit. This issue was examined by the State Commission in paragraph 0 onwards. In this connection, the State Commission has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Rita Devi (Smt.) and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 113. Relying upon the said judgment as also the observation of the Session Judge in the said murder case, the State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the accused had intention to kill the deceased assured and as such it could not be considered to be an accidental murder but it was a murder simplicitor. In view of this, the State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum which is the subject matter of challenge in this revision. In view of the clear findings of the State Commission, we do find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.