ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member—Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. 2. Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent complainant had booked 9 bundles of Sarees and dress material for transporting the same to Guntoor from Hyderabad. Out of these 9 bundles, two bundles were delivered and one was delivered later on. Six bundles were not delivered. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the complainant for settling the claim but when this was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the value of the six lost bundles along with cost of Rs.2,000. Aggrieved by this order, both the parties filed separate appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties dismissed both the appeals, hence this revision petition has been filed before us by the opposite party before the District Forum. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that the petitioner was a carrier and in that terms a bailee. It is admitted position that only out of 9 bundles only three bundles were delivered in two parts and six bundles were not delivered at all, in view of which there is concurrent finding of fact that six bundles were not delivered and value of those bundles was as per material given in each bundle. If based on that material, the District Forum has granted the relief only limiting to the cost of material of six bundles amounting to Rs.2,81,286, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission. 4. No illegality or irregularity has been shown to us to call for our interference in exercise of powers conferred on us under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. 5. This revision petition has no merit, hence dismissed. Revision dismissed. ********