1. Case is taken up on the second call. The petitioner has not appeared. On the earlier occasions also, he had not appeared. 2. We have perused the order dated 16-08-2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed. The State Commission has recorded the following facts while dismissing the appeal. “Having said that, it is also a fact that the appellant has miserably failed to adduce any material proof worthy of due consideration to support his contention. Take for example the allegation of damage caused to his luggage. Although it is alleged by the appellant that rain water destroyed his luggage, he made no endeavour whatsoever to establish such fact by placing the damaged belongings before the Ld.District Forum. Even the specification of damaged material had not been spelt out in the petition of complaint. Thus, on what basis he figured out the compensation amount remains doubtful. On the other hand, although the respondents, by filing WV, pointed out the fact that since the alleged harassment of the appellant took place within the administrative jurisdiction of North Western Railway and North Central Railway, they were necessary parties to the case; the Appellant did not amend his plaint to array those Railways to the case. As a result, the enquiry report in respect of the Appellant’s allegation could not be evaluated by the Ld. District Forum. Incidentally, it transpires that on receipt of Appellant’s allegation, the respondents forwarded his complaint to the concerned Railway authorities for causing due enquiry into the matter. The appellant must appreciate that the veracity of an allegation cannot be decided based on the mere allegations. It is incumbent to adduce cogent documentary proof to establish such allegation beyond all reasonable doubt. The allegations of the appellant being not proven, we find no infirmity with the decision of the Ld. District Forum.” 3. We find that the State Commission has recorded the aforesaid finding on appreciation of evidence placed on record and the order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, which require any interference in revisional jurisdiction. 4. The revision petition fails and is dismissed. | 
