Delay of 13 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          LRs are taken on record.

          Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum.

          Complainants planted popular trees in their respective fields with the help of Vimco company in the year 1990.  Vimco company and the respondent bank had jointly taken a Master Policy for Plantation of Trees.  It is alleged that in the year 1995, from 10.8.1995 to 14.8.1995, there were heavy rains and storm and flood in the area, due to which, the said plants were damaged.  Petitioners filed their respective claims with the insurance company, which were not settled on the ground that there was no relationship of consumer and service-provider between the petitioners and the insurance company.

          Being aggrieved, petitioners filed complaints before the District Forum.  District Forum, vide its order dated 19.3.2002 dismissed the complaints, aggrieved against which petitioners filed a composite appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission dismissed the appeal on four grounds :

1.                the damage, if any, was caused in 1995 and the complaints were filed on 7.8.1999, which were barred by limitation ;

2.                the petitioners had failed to prove that there were heavy rains or flood in the area concerned in the year 1995;

3.                there was no relationship of consumer and service-provider between the petitioners and the insurance company.  Relationship, if any, was with the Vimco company or the respondent bank.  That the petitioners had never paid any premium to the respondent insurance company ;

4.                composite appeal against order passed in several complaints by the District Forum was not maintainable.

We leave the question, as to whether composite appeal was maintainable, open for future consideration.  However, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the complaint filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation.  Under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint can be filed within two years from the arising of the cause of action.  Cause of action had arisen to the petitioner in the year 1995 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 1999, which was clearly barred by limitation.

Counsel for the petitioner is unable to show from any evidence that there indeed were heavy rains or flood in August 1995 in the area concerned.  Finding recorded by the State Commission on this point is a finding of 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.

          Further, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission that there was no relationship of consumer and service-provider between the petitioners and the insurance company.  The respondent’s contract was with Vimco company and the respondent bank and not with the petitioners.  Dismissed.