JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. – This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2015, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in C.C. No. 16 of 2013. 2. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the aforesaid complaint case was filed by these petitioners in the year 2013 and till the date of disposal, viz. on 24th April, 2015, no evidence was ever produced before the State Commission with respect to the claim of Rs.10 lacs towards medical expenses incurred by these petitioners as well as with respect to the claim of Rs.5 lacs for further medical and allied expenses. Not a single bill or receipt of the amount paid towards medical expenses has ever been produced before the Consumer Commission. 3. Similarly, neither any evidence has been given in the memo of the writ petition nor any evidence has been shown by way of any annexure in the memo of this writ petition towards claim of Rs.10 lacs with respect to medical expenses and with respect to further amount of Rs. 5 lacs towards medical and allied expenses. 4. Similarly, except bare assertions, neither there is anything in Complaint Case No. 16 of 2013 preferred by these petitioners before the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi with respect to Rs. 50 lacs towards physical and mental agony nor anything has been pointed out in the memo of the present writ petition. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that against the order passed by the State Consumer Commission, efficacious remedy is also available with these petitioners to approached National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. Moreover, paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order reads as under: "7. In the result the preliminary objection succeeds. The complainants are permitted to file a fresh complaint petition before the learned District Forum, if so advised. If it is filed along with limitation petition within six weeks, it is expected that the delay will be condoned." 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.