Complainant/petitioner took five FDRs on different dates from the respondent alleging that on maturity, respondent did not make the payment, the complaint was filed.  Stand taken by the respondent was that the entire amount of maturity had been credited to the account of the complainant and her husband and nothing is outstanding against the FDRs. 

2.      District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that on perusal of the record, it had emerged that all amounts have been paid to the respondent by pay orders and were credited in the saving account of the complainant and her husband in Canara Bank. 

3.        Petitioner not being satisfied filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.  State Commission sent for the records and after reexamining the entire records came to the conclusion that the entire payment against the FDRs have been made to the petitioner or her husband.

4.      We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Both the fora below after perusal of the record came to the conclusion that entire payment against the FDRs had been made to the petitioner. 

5.      We have also examined the records and find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by the fora below.  Otherwise also, finding recorded by the fora below is finding of the fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in revision, this Commission can interfere with the orders only if it appears that the Authority below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

7.      We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission in its impugned order.   Dismissed.