It appears that initially the complaint was filed which was decided by the District Commission on 16.01.2014 and the appeal was filed in the State Commission against that Order which was allowed vide Order dated 08.10.2015 whereby the complaint was remanded back to the District Commission. Thereafter, the District Commission vide its Order dated 07.03.2017 once again decided the matter. Aggrieved by the said Order, the complainant had filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was then decided in limini vide its Order dated 04.08.2017. It is this Order which seems to be now under challenge. 2. In fact there are a number of anomalies apparent on the face of record regarding filing of the present petition. The present ‘Petition’ since its inception has been described as ‘Appeal’ and the ‘Petitioner’ as an ‘Appellant’ while it ought to have been a ‘Revision’. Another glaring anomaly peeping out from the perusal of the record is that the Orders which have been shown to have been challenged before this Commission are all the Orders which have been passed so far including the earlier Orders dated 16.01.2014 passed by the District Commission, the Order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the State Commission and also the Order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the District Commission. Too obviously, all these Orders have been wrongly mentioned in the present ‘Petition’. But keeping in perspective the fact that the present ‘Revision Petition’ has been filed by the Complainant in person, this Commission feels inclined to ignore all these anomalies though these are neither insignificant nor small. Be that as it may, the ‘present ‘Petition’ is being treated as a ‘Revision’ as the previous order-sheets of this case would also indicate that the same has been described as a ‘Revision Petition’ for last several years. 3. The case has been called out intermittently but none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. It will serve no useful purpose to quote here all the previous order-sheets but suffice it to observe that since 28th September 2018 none has been appearing on behalf of the petitioner for all these five years. The order-sheets of this case also show that intimation about the court proceedings were given and even notices were issued by this Commission vide Orders dated 03.04.2023 and dated 29.05.2023. 4. This Bench has gone through the record. The relevant portion of the impugned Order dated 04.08.2017 may be usefully quoted herein below: --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2. According to appellant he was entitled to receive compensation from Insurance Company as well as Airlines. The District Forum has applied doctrine of subrogation on the plea that had the appellant paid the entire amount, it would have been entitled to recover the portion payable by Airlines. We do not find any infirmity in the said approach of the District Forum. A person cannot avail double remedy, once from airlines and then from insurance company. 3. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4. The appeal is dismissed in limini. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5. Even though this Bench has no hesitation to hold that it is a glaring case fit for dismissal in default on the ground of non-prosecution but as a matter of abundant precaution, the Bench has gone through the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 04.08.2017 and all the Orders passed by the District Commission as well as the memo of Petition. But no element of perversity is there which may be said to have vitiated the findings of the fora below. No material irregularity is perceptible. This Bench also does not see any jurisdictional error or legal principle ignored or erroneously ruled in the impugned Order which may call for any interference. The Bench while sitting in a revisional jurisdiction has its own ambit and scope to operate and as is the settled law unless there is some jurisdictional error committed by the fora below by way of either exceeding the jurisdiction or by way of abstaining from its exercise, the Bench should be loath to interfere into the factual findings arrived at and concurred by the two fora below consecutively. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court too in its decision given in case of Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Anr., (2022) 9 SCC 31 has observed that in exercise of power in its revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission is not required to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the fora below on appreciation of evidence. Relevant extracts of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court may be quoted herein below: At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction 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 its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. 7. Similar views were expressed by the Apex Court in the earlier case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company (2011) 11 SCC 269. 8. In view of the discussion above, the instant Revision Petition appears bereft of merit and hence stands dismissed as such. 9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the fora below immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. | 
