Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. 

          Dispute between the parties is that the respondent/complainant had purchased cement produced by the petitioner for construction of his house.  According to him, the quality of cement supplied was sub-standard which resulted in defects/cracks in the house, as a result of which he suffered huge loss.  Complaint was allowed by the District Forum and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          We find from the record that the respondent had sent the sample of the cement to the Government Engineering College for testing, which reported that the cement supplied was defective.  Finding recorded by the State Commission is based on evidence. 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.

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

          Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has deposited in all a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- before the District Forum, which includes the principal amount as well as the interest accrued thereon.  Counsel for the respondent states that this is not the entire amount due.  District Forum shall release the amount deposited by the petitioner in favour of the respondent and proceed with the execution if any amount remains to be paid.  However, issuance of summons/ bailable warrants against Mr.Kumarmangalam Birla by the District Forum is set aside as the petitioner has already deposited the entire/ substantial awarded amount along with interest.