These are a set of four revision petitions filed by M/S Tata Coffee Ltd. The four respondents herein had filed separate complaints before District Consumer Forum Bellary, seeking refund and compensation against the revision petitioners. All four complaints were allowed by the District Forum and appeals against them have been dismissed by the State Commission. By a common order, the State Commission has decided eight appeals, four filed by the present revision petitioners and the other four by the complainants. The latter had sought enhancement in the awards made by the District Forum. The State Commission has allowed the appeals of the respondent/complainants and dismissed the ones filed by the revision petitioner/OP. The revision petition thus has been filed against concurrent findings of fact by the District Forum as well as the State Commission. 2. All four complainants are brothers and their complaints have arisen from a single transaction of purchase of block board from the respondent. All four used the material in their respective houses for making of furniture, box type wardrobe, T.V. cabinet, dressing tables and other furniture items. The block board after some time were found to be affected by borer infestation. They took up the matter with the vendor/OP but did not get appropriate response. Hence four different consumer complaints were filed before the District consumer Forum Bellary, with prayer for refund of costs and award of compensation as follows:- Prayer Refund of Cost Compensation Sri N. Sreenivasulu 8.69 lacs 4.5 lacs Venkatesh 10.47 lacs 5 lacs Sri N. Murari, 4.61 lacs 2.5 lacs Balaji 11.46 lacs 5.5 lacs ------------------- ----------------- 35.23 lacs 17.5 lacs 3. The OP contested the complaints on the grounds inter alia of limitation, territorial jurisdiction and absence of evidence of manufacturing defects. The District Form came to a conclusion that since the goods purchased by the complainants were delivered and used at Bellary, the complainants resided at carried on their business at Bellary, the Forum had territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. On the question of limitation, the District Forum held that the cause of action arose in March 2007 when the block board was found infested by the borer worms. It rejected the contention of the OPs that cause of action arose in April, 2005, when the block boards were purchased. Hence the complaints were within the prescribed time limit. 4. Considering that all complaints arose from a single purchase, the District Forum ordered refund of the purchase price jointly to the four complainants. It also awarded interest at 9% from the date of the complaint. The State Commission, as already noted, had considered all eight appeals against the order of the District Forum. The four appeals filed by the RP/OP have been dismissed. The other four filed by the Complainants have been allowed, to the extent of award of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost, to the four complainants. 5. We have carefully considered the records as filed by the rival sides to the revision petitions. The two sides have also been heard at length by the Circuit Bench of this Commission at Bangalore on 06.2.2014. Mr. Dhananjaya Joshi, Advocate has been heard on behalf of M/s. Tata Coffee Ltd. and Mr. Vamshi Krishna, Advocate for four respondents/complainants. 6. At the very outset it needs to be observed that these revision petitions arise under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This provision empowers the National Commission to calls for the record and pass appropriate order in any consumer dispute, pending or decided by any State Commission, ‘where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a 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.’ 7. The scope of proceedings under this provision came up for detailed consideration by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 269. In this case, the complaint filed against repudiation of the motor vehicle accident claim by the insurer, was allowed by the District Forum. The State Commission agreed with the findings of the District Forum, but limited the award to the amount of loss as assessed by the surveyor. The National Commission reversed the concurrent finding of fact relating to the licence of the driver and quashed the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission. Civil Appeal against the order of the National Commission has been allowed by Hon’ble Supreme Court with the following observations:- “23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora”. 8. In the present revision petitions, the main ground raised on behalf of M/s. Tata Coffee Ltd. is that of that of limitation. It is contended that the complaint was filed in the year 2009 in relation to materials purchased in 2005. Hence, it should have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the borer-infestation should have taken place before the complainants informed the petitioner through their letter of 7.3.2007. He however, concede that the complainants could have written only after clearly noticing the infestation and not before. Therefore, in our view, the fora below have very rightly refused to compute the limitation from 2005. 9. The revision petition also claims that borer infestation can happen on account of a number of reasons, including poor maintenance for which the petitioner cannot be held liable. This contention is a mere suggestion of a possibility and nothing more. It does not refer to any evidence to show that infestation was caused by any action or non-action on the part of the buyers i.e. complainants. The revision petitions also contend that the infestation have probably arisen from the venner/frames sourced from third parties and used in making of furniture. This is again a mere suggestion of possibility and is rejected as such. 10. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents/complainants that the primary burden of proof had been discharged by them through the evidence of the concerned carpenter before the District Forum. Thereafter, it was for the OPs to produce evidence in support of their contentions, which was not done. On the contrary, when the complainants moved the application before the State Commission to appoint an architect engineer as an independent expert to evaluate the damage caused to the furniture, it was opposed by the present revision petitioners. Therefore, the contentions relating to quality and to what caused the loss, merit no further consideration. 11. The issue of territorial jurisdiction is again raised in the revision petition. But, we find that the petitioner/OP has solely relied upon a stipulation in the purchase bill stating ‘all disputes are subject to Bangalore jurisdiction’. In support, the revision petition contends that when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain and try a dispute, the parties can by consent confer exclusive jurisdiction on one of the two courts. This is factually incorrect. No evidence was led before the fora below to show that the two sides had ‘mutually consented’ to keeping the jurisdiction in Bangalore. On this issue District Forum has relied upon the provision in Section 12 (1) (a) in the Act to hold that as the goods were delivered in Bellary, the jurisdiction lay with the District Forum at Bellary. We may add here that in terms of the provision in Section 11 (1) (c) the jurisdiction would lie with the District Forum where the cause of action has arisen, whether wholly or in part. In the present case, the cause of action arose in Bellary, where the goods were physically received and utilized. It arose when the block boards used in making of the furniture items were found to be infested with the borer pest. We therefore, hold that the District Forum Bellary, has rightly exercised jurisdiction over the consumer complaint in this case. In the light of the details considered above, we find no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below, in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petitions are held to be devoid of merit and are dismissed as such. | 
