Delay of 7 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Petitioners were the opposite parties before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant had purchased shares of Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Vijaya Bank Ltd.   It was alleged that the respondent disposed of all the shares without the consent of the complainant/respondent.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners jointly and severely return the shares to the complainant with accruals thereon with costs of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of passing of the order.

-2-

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The State Commission has held that the petitioners had failed to prove that the Exhibits R-1 and R-2 had been executed by the respondent/complainant authorizing them to dispose of the shares.  The handwriting expert in the third round of litigation, after examining the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures sent to him for comparison, gave the opinion that the signatures found in the admitted document and the disputed documents were not of one and the same person.  The finding recorded by the State Commission is a finding of fact based on evidence which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

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.

-3-

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.