ORDER (ORAL)         

          The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 16.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.564 of 2016.  The Complainant had challenged the order dated 19.10.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (North) Tis Hazari,

-2-

Delhi (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.331 of 2014 which was decided in his favour.  His challenge in the Appeal was confined to the quantum of compensation granted to him by the District Forum.

2.      The State Commission after perusing the record and re-appreciating the evidences on record reached to the conclusion that the compensation awarded to the Complainant/Petitioner was justifiable and needed no interference and that no illegality or infirmity had been committed by the District Forum while awarding the said compensation and thereby dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner.

3.      Aggrieved by these findings, the Complainant had challenged the impugned order before this Commission.

4.      It is settled proposition of law that this Commission has limited revisional jurisdiction.  It can interfere with an order if there is illegality or infirmity committed or where the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction or where there is jurisdiction error.  It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” 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:

  “17.  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 j