JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”), has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”) allowing the Appeal No.446 of 2019 of the Respondent/Complainant. The said Appeal was filed by the Complainant against the order dated 23.04.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV (for short “the District Forum”) dismissing her Complaint No.893 of 2017. 2. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Fora below have reached to a wrong conclusion that the deceased/insured had not committed suicide while their investigation report clearly shows that he had committed suicide. It is further argued that the insured had not taken the bridge for crossing the railway line and by crossing the railway line he had put his life to danger and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit under the Consumer Protection Act. 3. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the insured Sh.Kailash Kumar Khandelwal, husband of the Complainant took an insurance policy and during the validity of the insurance policy, he died while crossing a railway line track as he was ran over by the train. A police report was lodged. Investigation was done by the police. The police filed its investigation report whereby it concluded that the death was due to accident on the railway track. The police had also concluded that many people used to cross the railway line from that place and for that purpose, cement walls had been raised on both sides of the railway track by the Railway but the miscreants of the area had broken the walls and people instead of using the bridge used to cross the railway line from that place. The statement of the wife of the insured/deceased was that on the date of the incident, she learnt that there was accident and two persons had died on the railway track. The statement of the Complainant as well as the report of the police concludes that the deceased had died due to accident on the railway track. The stand of the Insurance Company is that it was a suicide and for that purpose they have relied on their investigation report by investigator/surveyor who has opined that the death could be due to suicide. No facts which could put light on the motive on the part of the deceased to commit suicide were neither investigated nor placed on record. 4. It is evident that the findings of the Foras below are based on evidences on record. 5. It is settled proposition of law that this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot re-assess or re-appreciate the evidences on record and substitute the findings of the Fora below by its own conclusion on facts, moreso when there are concurrent findings on the facts. The limited jurisdiction which this Commission has is to judge whether the findings are perverse or whether the Fora below have exceeded its jurisdiction or have not acted within its jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under: “23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora”. 6. Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under: “17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.” 7. In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.” 8. It is apparent that the Foras below have relied on the testimonies on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to point out that the findings of the Fora below are perverse or without jurisdiction. I found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The present Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the Fora below and to the Complainant. | 
