ORAL The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 11.06.2019 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.1271 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 15.05.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.247 of 2012. 2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Forum below has acted on the wrong premise that two surveyors were appointed by the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Forum below has failed to notice the fraud played by the Respondents and which had -2- been observed by Mr. Mitesh Desai, the first surveyor and the investigator “360 Investigations” in their reports. It is also submitted that the Respondents had two embroidery machines and they could not produce the bills of those embroidery machines which were destroyed in the fire. It is submitted that the Insured/Respondents had also sold those two machines, although the salvage value of those machines @ ₹2 Lakhs was adjusted from the claim. It is submitted that all these facts, the Forum below have failed to consider. 3. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions and arguments of the learned Counsel and have perused the relevant record. There is a concurrent finding of facts contended by the Petitioner and the Respondents before the District Forum. Learned Counsel by his argument urges to this court to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences and documents and give the opinion on facts of case. 4. In “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that this Commission has no jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act to re-appreciate and re-assess the findings on record and then substitute its own opinion on the same sets of facts. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: -3- “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”. 5. 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: “23. 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.” 6. The only jurisdiction vested in this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act is to see whether there is some prima facie jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel has failed to point out any jurisdictional error on the part of the Forum below. No instance -4- showing miscarriage of justice being caused to the Petitioner has been brought to my notice. It is apparent that the Respondent had insured their machines for ₹2 Lakhs and their plant and machinery for ₹11,50,000/- and the salvage value of two sewing machines has already been adjusted in the claim. 7. I found no merit in the present Revision Petition. The Revision Petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. | 
