The court emphasized the limits of its jurisdiction in reassessing evidence and upholding concurrent factual findings of lower forums.

1. The present Revision Petition, under S.58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act'), has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short 'the State Commission') allowing the Appeal No. 446 of 2019 of the Respondent / Complainant. The said Appeal was filed by the Complainant against the order dated 23.4.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur - IV (for short 'the District Forum') dismissing her Complaint No. 893 of 2017.

2. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Fora below have reached to a wrong conclusion that the deceased / insured had not committed suicide while their investigation report clearly shows that he had committed suicide. It is further argued that the insured had not taken the bridge for crossing the railway line and by crossing the railway line he had put his life to danger and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit under the Consumer Protection Act.

3. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the insured Sh. Kailash Kumar Khandelwal, husband of the Complainant took an insurance policy and during the validity of the insurance policy, he died while crossing a railway line track as he was ran over by the train. A police report was lodged. Investigation was done by the police. The police filed its investigation report whereby it concluded that the death was due to accident on the railway track. The police had also concluded that many people used to cross the railway line from that place and for that purpose, cement walls had been raised on both sides of the railway track by the Railway but the miscreants of the area had broken the walls and people instead of using the bridge used to cross the railway line from that place. The statement of the wife of the insured / deceased was that on the date of the incident, she learnt that there was accident and two persons had died on the railway track. The statement of the Complainant as well as the report of the police concludes that the deceased had died due to accident on the railway track. The stand of the Insurance Company is that it was a suicide and for that purpose they have relied on their investigation report by investigator / surveyor who has opined that the death could be due to suicide. No facts which could put light on the motive on the part of the deceased to commit suicide were neither investigated nor placed on record.

4. It is evident that the findings of the Foras below are based on evidences on record.

5. It is settled proposition of law that this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot re - assess or re - appreciate the evidences on record and substitute the findings of the Fora below by its own conclusion on facts, moreso when there are concurrent findings on the facts. The limited jurisdiction which this Commission has is to judge whether the findings are perverse or whether the Fora below have exceeded its jurisdiction or have not acted within its jurisdiction. The Honble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 303 : (2011) 11 SCC 269, has held as under:
'23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from S.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 warrante