Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Despite my all persuasion to settle the issue, that was not acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Allegedly since Panasonic printer supplied by petitioner to respondent for Rs.6300/- on 2nd September, 1997 was not upto expectations of respondent, as two paper guides were not supplied alongwith printer and also that there was poor printing and even price of Panasonic printer was higher that shown in advertisement, a consumer complaint came to be filed with District Forum. District Forum holding that there was no practice of supply of two paper guides and also there being no evidence about poor -2- printing by printer; and price too to be within the price quoted in the brochure, finding no deficiency on part of petitioner, dismissed complaint. Respondent herein approached State Commission, which without recording finding about deficiency on part of petitioner, saddled petitioner with compensation of Rs.3,000/-. It is crystalised by catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that compensation can be awarded only on a finding of deficiency or negligence causing loss or injury suffered by parties. That being so finding of State Commission cannot be sustained. Resultantly revision petition succeeds and order of State Commission is set aside, with no order as to costs.