This revision petition is filed against concurrent finding of the District Forum and the State Commission, Delhi in complaint case no. 1333 / 2005 and FA No. 07/512 respectively. 2. By the impugned orders, the petitioner was held responsible to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent (complainant) alongwith additional amount of Rs.20,000/- towards harassment, in convenience and mental agony caused to him. 3. Petitioner is a service provider being the consultancy service to organise for obtaining of visa. The respondent has admittedly paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the petitioner while taking assistance for processing of the application for visa with the Australian authorities. The petitioner provided kit to the respondent in order to complete the processing for the purpose of getting the visa and an agreement was entered into between them. The respondent was frustrated due to the delay caused when the documents were found in sufficient and there was deficiency in application for the visa. Certain more documents were called from him for the clearance of the process. He later on withdrew the hired services from the revision petitioner and requested for refund of the amount. The petitioner repudiated the claim. The District Forum held that the petitioner was responsible to ensure that visa is arranged after giving complete information to the respondent and giving him full idea about the required documents. The District Forum held that the respondent was frustrated and withdrew the hired service of the petitioner on account of the failure of the petitioner fulfil the terms and causing frustration to the respondent. It was the case of the petitioner before both the Fora, i.e., District Forum and the State Commission that the respondent did not pay $350/- for which he was repeatedly asked to pay. 4. We do not find any support to the defence by the petitioner regarding repeated demand for $350/- and failure of the respondent to comply with such demand. The revisional jurisdiction is rather limited. We do not find it necessary to enter into the questions pertaining to the findings of facts. It is not permissible to re-appreciate the evidence and come to any other finding unless it is demonstrated that the evidence is misread or there is perversity in such case. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such it is dismissed. No costs.