PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, ORAL Heard Counsels appearing on both sides. These revisions arise out of the common order passed by the District Forum as also the State Commission. The District Forum had ordered both the petitioners to replace the body of the vehicle bearing No. GA-01-T-6249 alongwith fresh warranty to start from the date of replacement. In addition, a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded as damages. This order was challenged by the present petitioners before the State Commission and the State Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeals. This is how the petitioners have come in revisions against the concurrent findings of two fora below. Both the fora below have recorded concurrent findings on the basis of material on record. The concurrent findings affect cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless the same are perverse. Both the fora below have taken into consideration that the body of the vehicle had rusted for which the vehicle was taken to the garage on number of occasions and touch up and painting was done, however the dust did not stop. In view of the same, the fora below have relied upon the job cards and considered the material on record for awarding the compensation as also directions to replace the body of the vehicle in question In view of the above, I do not find that any case is made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21-B of the Consumer Protection Act as I do not find any jurisdictional error or material illegality in the orders of the fora below. The revisions are accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- each to be paid by the petitioners to the complainant/respondent No. 1.