ORDER : By Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-Insurance Company is aggrieved against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 11th September, 2003 passed in Appeal No.351 of 2003, whereby the State Commission dismissed the writ petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gumla in Case no. 45 of 1995. 3. As per the brief facts of the case, the insured bus suffered one accident for which there was a coverage. The Insured case was that because of that accident, body of the bus got damaged and it was totally repaired by incurring cost of Rs.1,74,518.89. Against this, both the authorities have allowed claim of the insured to the tune of Rs.1,24,000/-. 4. The writ petitioner's contention is that twice surveyors were appointed and they gave their assessment. One survey was conducted of the site where accident occurred and thereafter a regular survey was appointed, who visited the place where the bus of the insured was to be repaired and there he obtained the photographs of the bus. After detailed fact finding, the Surveyor reached to the conclusion that the loss is of Rs.7,000/- only. 5. Before the District Consumer Forum, the parties led evidence, which were duly considered by the District Consumer Forum and thereafter it held that in view of the evidence with respect to the damage of the insured bus and cost incurred by the insured for repairing of the body of the bus, he is entitled to Rs.1,24,000/- and rejected the contention of the Insurance Company that it could have incurred loss of Rs.7,000/- only. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company submitted that the order passed by both the authorities are absolutely perverse because of the reason that in the FIR lodged by the insured himself he mentioned that because of mechanical break down, the bus rolled back and it was not because of any other type of accident. It was not a case of capsizing of the vehicle as has been set up as afterthought. It is submitted that the authorities committed grave error by ignoring the photographs produced by the Insurance Company which were of the place where bus was found after the said mechanical fault, which will reveal that body of the bus did not get total damage. 7. It is submitted that the authorities committed grave error by ignoring the photographs produced by the Insurance Company which were of the place where bus was found after the said mechanical fault, which will reveal that body of the bus did not get total damage. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to justify the order passed by both the Forums. 8. We have perused the reasons given by the appellate authority as well as in the original order. The evidence has been considered in detail. In writ jurisdiction, we are not going to appreciate and reappreciate the evidence. It is not a case of non consideration of evidence. If the evidence has been considered and even the authorities have reached to a wrong conclusion, then also it does not require any reappreciation. We are not inclined to hold that the authorities have committed any error of law, so as to call for interference by us. 9. It will be relevant to mention here that in the accident, one person died also but that may not be relevant for the purpose of assessment of the damage of body of the bus but that may be indicator towards the facts that it was, in fact, an accident for whatsoever reason. 10. There being no merit, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.