Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Alleging deficiency in service a complaint was filed by respondent with averment that he had grown sugarcane in six acres of land bearing Survey No. 46/1 and while so, on 04.05.2007, when electric wires between two poles touched together, due to blow of wind, there was sparkling of fire, due to which his sugar cane crop was burnt which was subsequently extinguished by villagers. The respondent/complainant thus sustained loss of Rs. 4,42,000/- which the petitioner refused to compensate. On complaint by respondent, petitioner contested before District Forum. District Forum, on consideration of pleadings of parties, while accepting complaint, directed petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of sugarcane crop along with Rs. 2,000/- being the cost of proceeding with a default clause that in case the aforesaid amount was not paid within two months that will carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. When matter was carried in appeal by aggrieved petitioner, State Commission while maintaining basic finding of District Forum about deficiency in service, reduced compensation to Rs. 1,00,000/- and appeal was consequently dismissed. Learned counsel had taken pains to draw our attention to a number of documents placed on record including that of investigation report submitted by officials of petitioner company in which genuineness of incident was negated and incidence of fire was stated to be false. However, though investigation report was placed on record before District Forum, no effort was made by petitioner – Board to file affidavit in support of contention of the report or to examine officials who conducted investigation. That apart, estimate of loss of crop was made not only by Village Accountant but also by Assistant Director of Agriculture on which, both fora below have based their finding upholding claim of respondent. Contention raised on behalf of petitioner that since there was no evidence about any damage caused to the near by establishment or equipment, did not carry significance against concurrent finding of fora below which is based on meticulous appreciation of issues. We feel reluctant to interfere with the impugned order while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition, in the circumstances being without substance, is dismissed but without order as to cost.