(1.) Respondent No.2 has been served. None is present on its behalf. The said Respondent is proceeded ex parte.
(2.) By the impugned order, the findings of the District Forum were confirmed.
(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Revision Petition has been filed wherein it is alleged that the evidences produced by the parties before the Fora below have not been properly considered and interpreted by the State Commission in the impugned order and certain documents were also not considered by the State Commission as well as the District Forum.