ORAL The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur Bench No.1 (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.416 of 2015 of the Petitioners challenging the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (for short “the District Forum”) dated 23.02.2015 in Complaint No.240 of 2014 filed by the Respondent. -2- The admitted facts of the case are that the Respondent had applied for allotment of a house under the Weaker Section category and deposited a sum of ₹5,000/- as registration money on 31.12.2004 and also deposited a sum of ₹3,000/- as prepossession charges on 04.09.2006. He did not receive any information from the Petitioners and so he approached them and learnt that the allotment in his name had been cancelled on 02.09.2016. He filed a Complaint before the District Forum against the alleged act of the Petitioners alleging that it amounted to deficiency in service. The Petitioners in their written version had stated that they had issued an allotment letter dated 16.04.2008 and asked the Respondent to deposit the balance money. The letter was received by the Respondent but the Petitioners did not receive the balance money and therefore, the allotment was cancelled. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The plea of the Complainant before the District Forum was that no allotment letter had been received by him. The controversy before the District Forum was whether the letter dated 16.04.2008, which the Petitioners stated had been sent to the Respondent, was received by the Respondent or not. -3- After perusing the evidences led by both the parties, the District Forum on this account had held as under: “7. The opponent board argued that allotment letter dated 16.04.2008 was received to the applicant on the ground that the above letter in envelope was sent through speed post and registered post which was not received back in the office of opponent. Therefore received by the applicant. The opponent board has produced the postal receipt for dispatch of the envelope. The applicant denied this fact of receiving the envelope. He also argued that in the application form she mentioned his address as 2, Somnath Colony, College Road, Beawar and the same address was mentioned in the allotment letter dated 16.04.2008, but the postal receipt produced on behalf of opponent board the address of applicant is mentioned as 2, Somnath Colony, Beawer and in this address College Road is not mentioned. Therefore the address of applicant is incomplete.” The District Forum on the basis of evidences concluded that since the letter dated 16.04.2008 was not sent at the correct address, there was no question of it being received by the Respondent. These findings were impugned by the Petitioners before the State Commission by way of Appeal and the State Commission had concurred with the District Forum on the findings on this fact. Vide this Revision Petition, Petitioners have again challenged the finding of fact by the District Forum and the State Commission that the letter dated 16.04.2018 had not been served upon the Respondent, as incorrect and wrong and therefore, liable to be set aside. -4- It is a settled proposition of law that under Section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission has limited jurisdiction. It is not required to re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences led by the parties and then reach to its own conclusion on the facts of the case. The findings are concurrent findings and can only be challenged on the ground that there seems to be any miscarriage of justice or the order is against the existing law or violative of any law or perverse. 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” as under: “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- Since in the present case, the Petitioners have only challenged the findings of Fora below on a particular fact which is based on the evidences led before it, this Commission has no jurisdiction to re-ascertain and re-appreciate the evidences led by the parties and substitute its own finding. No miscarriage of justice or perversity has been brought to our notice. The Revision Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. | 
