Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and the orders passed by the Fora below, the original opposite party courier service has filed this petition. The consumer dispute raised in the complaint was in regard to the non delivery of a consignment containing certain medicines worth Rs.91,800/- handed over by the complainant to the petitioner for its safe carriage and delivery to the named consignee at Chennai. According to the complainant, the consignment was never delivered and was misplaced by the petitioner. Petitioner did not dispute that the consignment was handed over to it but pleaded that it was duly delivered to the consignee at the destination which he failed to establish by producing any cogent evidence on record. The best evidence could be the acknowledgement of the consignee on the delivery receipt which was never produced. However, an affidavit of one Sanjeev Puri, Administrative Officer, was filed in support of the said plea which has been rightly discarded by the Fora below in absence of the cogent documentary proof. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the findings and orders of the Fora below primarily on the ground that those are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and evidence and material brought on record. We have noted down these contentions only to be rejected. We are of the view that the Fora below have given valid reasons for allowing the complaint. Even the compensation awarded does not seem to be harsh or excessive. The Supreme Court in case of rs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)] has held that unless there is any jurisdictional error which has led to miscarriage of justice, the concurrent findings reached by the Fora below should not be interfered by the National Commission in its supervisory jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 3. For the above-stated reasons, we dismiss the revision petition as devoid of any merit.