Legal representative of the respondent has been served by publication of Notice in the newspapers.  None is present on behalf of the respondent.

          Petitioner/complainant allegedly purchased timber worth Rs.32,000/- in May 1996.  According to the respondent, petitioner had purchased timber worth Rs.18,135.75p. only and that there was no defect in the timber supplied.  Alleging that the timber supplied was different from what had been ordered and that the same was of inferior quality, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum. 

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.61,000/- within two months from the passing of the order. 

Aggrieved by this, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed and the complaint has been ordered to be dismissed.  State Commission has recorded a finding that there was no evidence that the petitioner had purchased timber worth Rs.32,000/- from the respondent; that the petitioner also failed to prove that the timber supplied to him was of inferior quality.  State Commission did not rely upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner, he being not an expert in the field; that the Advocate Commissioner could not comment on the quality of timber even if he was assisted by a Civil Engineer.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no infirmity in the same.  Dismissed.