(1.) Petitioner was the complainant. Respondent/oppsite party undertook to carry out certain fabrication work under the work order Ex. C-2 for the petitioner. Alleging deficiency in service, petitioner filed complaint seeking direction to the respondent to pay sum of Rs. 1,20,200/- and for other reliefs. Petitioner alleged that terms of work order Ex. C-2 was not adhered to, there was delay in carrying out construction work and work done was of poor standard and also defective. Respondent contested the complaint.
(2.) On appreciation of depositions of both the parties and materials on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding the respondent not deficient in service by the order dated 29.5.2002. Appeal filed against District Forum's order by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission order dated 3.11.2005. It is this order which is being impugned in this revision.
(3.) Contention advanced by Mr. Kirit S. Javali whom we have heard on admission, is that the respondent was deficient in service, and Fora below did not properly evaluate the evidence and the materials produced, by the parties. In our view, reappraisal of evidence cannot be made in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the said section. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.