Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant booked a bus for carrying the marriage party and agreed to pay sum of Rs.2,500/-, out of which Rs.1,500/- were paid as advance.  The bus did not arrive at the venue at the fixed time of 6:30 a.m.  It came to the venue at               11:00 a.m.  The bus was booked for return trip as well.  But the same

-2-

did not turn up to take the marriage party back to the original destination.  Alternative arrangements had to be made for the marriage party to bring them back to the original destination.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum which was allowed.  Petitioner was directed to pay sum of Rs.2000/- with interest @ 18% p.a.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded by way of compensation.

          Petitioner as well as respondent, being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, filed separate appeals before the state Commission.  State Commission by the impugned order has reduced the rate of interest to 9% p.a., but raised the amount of compensation to Rs.30,000/-.

          Counsel for the petitioner has been heard.

          We have gone through the order passed by the foras below and find no infirmity in the same.  The finding recorded is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

-3-

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Revisional jurisdiction this Commission can interfere only if the State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

We agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and do not find that there has been any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on either of accounts mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.  Dismissed.