Petitioner’s factory, which was insured for Rs.9,70,000, was robbed/burnt during the riots in the year 2002.  The claim filed by the petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission.

-2-

          The State Commission by the impugned order has upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner had failed to produce any proof of the goods lying in the factory.  The State Commission has accepted the report submitted by the Surveyor and Investigator that the factory of the complainant was closed down 18 months prior to the breaking out of riots and no signs of electrical fittings etc. were found.

          From the evidence produced on record, we are satisfied that the finding recorded by the State Commission is in consonance with the material placed on record.  The 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 Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its

-3-

jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  We do not find any such material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.