In this revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ct there is challenge to order dated 18.4.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai(for short, tate Commission) in First Appeal No. 252 of 2011. 2. Brief facts are that Petitioner/Complainant had availed the services of Respondents/O.Ps.by holding five credit cards issued by Respondent No.1. It is alleged that Petitioner had been making prompt payments for all the five cards. Only because of the services offered by the respondents went against the agreed norms, petitioner decided to withdraw from the said services. After consulting the official of the respondent no.1 and as per the advice received, petitioner cut into pieces all the five cards and sent the same to respondent no.1 along with 12 cheques for full and final settlement of the entire dues. Respondent No.1 having received the letter and cheques along with cut pieces of five credit cards had also encashed all the 12 cheques. Only after the 12 cheques were honoured, respondent no. 1 started sending further demand letters to the petitioner as if he owed money to respondent no.1 under the said credit card transactions. Having accepted the said 12 cheques towards the settlement of entire dues and having encashed them, respondent no.1 is estopped from claiming any further amount from the petitioner. The act of respondents in initiating proceedings before the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 3. Respondents in their written statement admitted that petitioner had availed five credit card issued by respondent no.1. However, respondent no.1 had not sent any full settlement letter to the petitioner giving him the plan, amount and period of repayment. The petitioner, suo motto had sent a letter enclosing 12 cheques for Rs.8,520/- each as there was no settlement of dues, as alleged and no repayment from 2006. So, the respondents in the normal course referred the matter to the Lok Adalat of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. Resorting to the recovery of dues through Lok Adalat cannot amount to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South)(for short, istrict Forum, vide order dated 20.12.2007, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner being devoid of merits. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 18.4.2013. 6. Hence, this revision petition. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been deficiency on the part of the respondents in as much as constant harassment is being caused to the petitioner even after full and final settlement made by the petitioner. 9. District Forum, in its order held; redit card history in respect of five credit cards dated 27.03.2008 issued by the opposite party is Ex B1. Credit card statement for the period from July 2005 to August 2006 is Ex B2. Perusal of Ex B2 would reveal that the complainant had outstanding amount due to the opposite party bank even after the realization of 12 cheques sent by the complainant towards full and final settlement. For recovery of dues from the complainant, the opposite parties referred the matter to the Lok Adalat. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that resorting to recovery of dues through the Lok Adalat would not amount to deficiency in service 10. State Commission, while confirming the order of District Forum, in its impugned order observed; . We have carefully considered the arguments of the complainant and record relied upon by the complainant and as well as the respondents/opposite parties before the District Forum even though the complainant alleged that in view of the final settlement he had sent 12 cheques for Rs.1,02,328/- against the due for Rs.1,27,910/- as per Ex.A1 statement of account and on that basis he had also surrendered the credit cards by cutting into pieces and thereby claimed entire discharge, the opposite party contended that since the dues are pending matter was referred to Lok Adalat for recovery of money which cannot be considered as deficiency of service. On perusal of the Ex.A3 Lok Adalat notice along with the statement details of the 5 cards containing total outstanding dues in each case after the last usage date and the complainant did not file any letter of settlement to prove that he was directed to pay only a sum of Rs.1,02,328/- instead of Rs.1,27,910/- as final settlement. So the letter sent by the opposite party under Ex.A5, the complainant was requested to furnish the settlement letter to enable them to look into the matter to do the needful and thereby it is clear that there was no effective settlement by way of documentary proof and thereby the complainant cannot claim any discharge from the entire dues and the dispute to be settled between the parties themselves in this regard as it involves question of principal amount, interest, penal interest etc as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for receiving the credit card facility service and thereby the District Forum by considering all the relevant materials in detail came to the proper conclusion by dismissing the complaint with which finding, we find no need for any interfere and this appeal to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly 11. After perusing of the record, we find that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner has made any full and final settlement with the respondents in respect of his Credit Card amount. 12. Both the Fora below have categorically held that a sum of Rs.1,27,910/- was due against the petitioner against which he himself had sent a sum of Rs.1,02,328/- towards full and final settlement unilaterally. 13. Under section 21 (b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 14. Honle Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; 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 15. In view of the concurrent findings of facts given by both the Fora below, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the state Commission. Hence, present revision petition has no legal force and the same is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.