JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. The petitioners/complainants took a house in the area of Gullarwala (Lehi), Tehsil Baddi, District Solan of Himachal Pradesh and got the same insured for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. At the time of taking insurance cover the petitioner/complainant declared to the insurance company that the aforesaid property was being used as a dwelling house. The house was let out by the complainants/petitioners to a pharmaceutical firm namely Noel Pharma, Baddi. A fire broke out in the aforesaid house of the complainants on 15-04-2010, damaging the fittings, fixtures and wiring, etc., installed in the building. The complainants/petitioners submitted a claim of Rs.11,92,345/- with the respondent/insurance company. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance company who visited the spot and submitted his report to the company. However, the claim submitted by the petitioners/complainants was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that the insured house was not being used for a residential purpose. 2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his claim the petitioner approached the Solan District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum), seeking the following reliefs: i) The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,92,345/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five Only) as claim/compensation, on account of damages and loss caused to house of complainants, situated in the area of village Gullarwala (Lehi) Tehsil Baddi, Distt. Solan, alongwith interest @12% p.a. w.e.f.15.4.2010, till its realization, in favour of complainants and against the opposite party, in the interest of justice. (ii) The opposite party may further be directed to pay damages and compensation to the complainants amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of deficient services rendered by opposite party and harassment, stress, strain and mental agony so caused by the opposite party, in favour of complainants and against the opposite party, in the interest of justice. (iii) The opposite party may also be directed to pay costs of the present complaint amounting to Rs.5,000/- as the complainants have been compelled to file the present complaint as the opposite party has failed to pay the claim amount inspite of several requests made by complainants, in favour of complainants and against the opposite party in the interest of justice. 3. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that though the insurance cover was taken for residential use and the policy clearly provided that in case of change in the nature of occupation and use of the insured property so as to enhance or increase the risk of damage, the insured will not be entitled to claim any amount and the house in question was being used by Noel Pharma for commercial purpose. According to the respondent, the surveyor found that the aforesaid house was being used as a store for keeping stock of pharmaceutical products and packing material comprising of card board boxes, wrappers and papers, etc., which substantially increased the risk of damage by fire. 4. Vide its order dated 13-12-2013, the District Forum rejected the complaint filed by the petitioners. 5. Being aggrieved from the rejection of their complaint, the petitioners approached the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission). The appeal filed by him having been dismissed by the said Commission vide impugned order dated 26-05-2014, the complainants are before us by way of this revision petition. 6. A perusal of the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission would show that a concurrent finding of fact has been returned by the fora below that the house which the petitioner had got insured with the respondent/company was being used for a non-residential purpose. The aforesaid concurrent finding of fact was based upon the inspection carried out by the surveyor and the rent note which was executed by the tenant in favour of the complainants/petitioners. The scope of our revisional jurisdiction being limited we cannot interfere with the aforesaid concurrent finding of fact unless it is shown to be perverse in nature. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case the aforesaid finding cannot be said to be such which no reasonable person, acting on the basis of the material available to him, could have recorded. 7. During the course of arguments we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to show the rent note executed in favour of the petitioners to us, so that we can verify whether the house in question was let out for a residential purpose or for a non-residential purpose. The learned counsel submits that only the first page of the rent note is available with him and he is not in a position to produce the remaining pages. However, he fairly concedes that the rent note contained no stipulation that the house in question was to be used only for residential purpose. According to him the rent note was silent as regards the nature of the use to which the house could be put by the tenant. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the house which the petitioners had got insured was let out by them for residential purpose alone. 8. It was found by the fora below that not only was a part of the aforesaid house being used as a guest house of the tenant substantial material including packing material comprising of wrappers and card boards had been stored in a part of the said house. The storage of the aforesaid inflammable material, in our opinion, substantially increased the risk of damage on account of fire involving the aforesaid packing material. Thus, the insurance company was clearly relieved of its obligation on two grounds, firstly, on account of the house in question having been allowed to be used for non-residential purpose despite getting it insured for use as a dwelling house and, secondly on account of its having been used as a store for keeping material including inflammable packing material. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no good ground to interfere with the view taken by the fora below. The revision petition is hereby dismissed.