In this petition concurrent award of compensation by Divisional Consumer Forum and State Consumer Protection Commission (in appeal) in a claim petition for recovery of compensation inrespect of loss suffered by respondent No. 1 at his carpet weaving unit during the currency of insurance cover, are under challenge. 2. Respondent-claimant before the two Consumer Forum got insurance policy /certificate, to cover his carpet weaving unit with looms and finished and semi-finished carpets, yarn and other items in stock in an amount of Rs. one lac. The unit was operating and functioning in the premises at Kaloosa Bandipora, during the currency of insurance cover, the unit and stock suffered loss. Respondent notified same to the insurance company ( writ petitioner ) soon after the incident on 3/4 march 1997. Surveyor was appointed, who reported and recommended its rejection as `no claim or consumer cmplaint. Divisional Consumer protection Forum alowed the petitioners claim to the extent of Rs. 81, 150/- with 12% interest from the date of six months after the occurance till payment. Besides Rs. 5000/- was also awarded for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to him. 3. In appeal the J&K State Consumer Protection Forum reduced this amount by 35% after giving set off for salvage. Besides compensation for inconvenience and mental agony was reduced to Rs. 3000/-. 4. Mr.G.R.Tantray has filed reply on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 1, the claimant before Consumer Forum. It is contended that the claim has been allowed on regular enquiry on admittance/tender of evidence and material led by the parties and after hearing the parties at length with adequate opportunity at every stage. The Divisional Consumer Protection Forum awarded the compensation with interest on facts after analysing facts and circumstances of the case. In appeal against this order, the Forum reduced amount by 35% after setting off and giving adjustment in the actual value of the salvage on the compensation. The rate of interest has been also slashed from 12% to 10%. The survey report of the surveyor appointed by the petitioner company too has been considered alongwith other evidence including Police report, certificate of loss furnished by the Assistant Director Handicrafts and oral evidenceled in the matter. It is only on the basis of facts and circumstances and adjudicated by the Divisional Forum that the compensation was awarded which on appeal has been reduced by the appellate Forum. It is only on the basis of facts and circumstances and adjudicated by the Divisional Forum that the compensation was awarded which on appeal has been reduced by the appellate Forum. The forums have not committed any error of jurisdiction or any error of law. 5. The counsel for the parties have been heard. Available record perused. matter considered. 6. There is a concurrent positive finding of fact on the question of subsistance of insurance cover, occurrence of loss, incident having taken place and coverage of incident by the policy.Similarly Divisional Forum has held the insurance company liable for full amount of compensation of Rs. 82,150/- whereas the appellate Forum of State Consumer Protection Commission has slashed and scaled down this amount to Rs. 53, 377/-, after giving credit for solvage to the extent of 35%. But the fact remains that both courts have held the Insurance Company liable for the loss and for compensation to the insured. Obviously there is concurrent finding on this aspect of this case. The counsel submits that the solvage has not been given full discount. However this cannot be looked in the writ jurisdiction when the forums have already decided the matter and the insurance company has to settle down to receive same as final finding of fact by the forum. The disputes raised with regard to the quantum of compensation and extent of solvage, are essentially matters to be decided on enquiry on evidence. Such facts when disputed on otherside cannot be gone into the writ jurisdiction moreso in view of the finding of the forums. The impugned orders are not shown to suffer from any jurisdictional error, or legal infirmity. The orders appear to have been passed within the confines of law. The whole material evidence has been considered by the forums. This court in writ jurisdiction is not sitting in appeal or revision over the orders of Consumer Forums. The order seen as it is having been based within para-meters of law cannot be interfered. 7. In that view of the matter, writ petition wis dismissed in limine.