State Commission has completely misunderstood the scope of the dispute between the parties.  The dispute before the State Commission was neither regarding escalation of price nor of penal interest.  State Commission, in its order, has not even referred to the pleadings or the evidence, which had been led before the District Forum.

          State Commission is the court of First Appeal, which is the final court of fact.  Being the final court of fact, State Commission was required to reappraise the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties and thereafter come to the conclusion by recording reasons in support thereof which has not been done in the present case.

          For the reasons stated above, order under revision is set aside and the case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

          Respondent is not present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 5.8.2010.

          We would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal at an early date after due service on the respondent and preferably within a period of 9 months from the date of first appearance of the parties.