1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 09.08.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.2163 of 2013 in which order dated 18.12.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rewa (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.23 of 2011 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 09.08.2023 of the State Commission.

2.       Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below with respect to the quantum of claim to be paid in accordance with the report of the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company and not admitting the claim to the extent of Rs.4,98,872/-.  The State Commission in its order stated that Surveyor appointed had assessed the net liability of the insurer to the extent of Rs.60,011/-.  Ex. D-3 which is the discharge voucher executed by the complainant in full and final settlement of his claim to the extent of Rs.58,780/- which was later paid by the Insurance Company to the Financer. The Petitioner has not placed on record copy of the discharge voucher and the report of the Surveyor.  The vehicle in question met with an accident. The Petitioner has placed on record 16 bills towards the crane charges and repair of the vehicle in question.  While we agree that for the towing charges, there may be separate bill for the crane service, we are not able to understand as to why there are multiplicity of bills with respect to the repair of the vehicle in question which met with an accident.  Further, it is seen that except for some bills issued by authorized workshop,  other bills are handwritten issued, authenticity of which cannot be established.

3.       We have carefully gone through the order of the District Forum, State Commission, other relevant records and contentions of the Petitioner.  Prima facie, we see no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission.  Hence, we do not find any reason to admit the Revision Petition.  Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.