State Commission has recorded a finding of fact that fire was not caused due to short-circuiting.  This finding is based on the evidence of Electrical Inspector, who, in his report, has concluded that the fire was not due to short-circuit.  The report of the Electrical Inspector is corroborated by the evidence of the neighbour, according to whom, there was no disruption in the supply of electricity.  As against this, petitioner has not led any evidence except to produce a Panchnama to show that the fire was due to short-circuiting.  The persons who signed the Panchnama were not cited as witnesses.  Even their affidavits in support of the documents produced by the petitioner, have not been filed.  State Commission, in its order, has recorded the following finding :

“We heard arguments of both sides.  It is admitted fact that there is fire in the field of complainant.  But the fact of sparking or bursting of transformer was denied by MSEB.  Panchnamas were done after incident of fire.  Therefore trees, plants were burnt is true fact.  But cause of fire was not short circuit.  In the reply of notice MSEB specifically denied the incident of bursting or short circuit in the transformer.  The statements of adjacent farmers were recorded by officer of MSEB.  In those statements all the farmers contended that there was no disruption in the electric supply any time on 16.2.2003 and 17.2.2003.  they stated in their statement that supply was there and all of them irrigated their lands.  The evidence brought on record shows that transformer was never electrocuted (burnt) due to electric short circuit, which could have been the negligence of the appellant.  Electric Inspector is an independent person appointed by Government.  His report clearly shows that transformer was not burnt due to short circuit.  Electrical Inspector is the final authority.  After getting reports from all the subordinate officers Electrical Inspector, Nashik concluded that said fire was not due to short circuit.  It was for the complainant to prove that incident of fire took place due to negligence on the part of the appellant.  Complainant did not bring on record any evidence to show that cause of fire is the negligence of appellant that is bursting of transformer due to short circuit.  In the absence of any evidence about negligence on the part of appellant we cannot hold appellant responsible for the same.  We are of the view that District Forum did not consider the fact and record in right perspective.  It is an admitted fact that incident of fire occurred in the land of complainant but cause of fire is not short circuit but something else for which appellant cannot be blamed.  After considering all the facts we came to the conclusion that District Forum committed error while allowing complaint.  Therefore we are inclined to allow the appeal.  Hence the order.”

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.