Petitioner was the opposite party No.2 before the District Forum.

          Respondent No.1 - M/s.Kanchee Cosapthagiri Silks (the complainant) had sent silk sarees through transporter to deliver them to consignee, M/s.Laxmi Saree Emporium, Renukot on production of lorry receipt and also after receiving the sum of Rs.1,35,107/- to the petitioner.  Petitioner allowed the consignee to take delivery of goods sent by the complainant without making the payment.  When the complainant came to know that the petitioner had given the delivery of goods without payment, complainant asked the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.1,35,107/-, being the value of sarees.  Petitioner failed to pay the amount.  Aggrieved by this, complainant was filed before the District Forum.

          Petitioner, in spite of having been served, did not put in appearance.  Petitioner neither filed the written statement nor lead any evidence before the District Forum.  District Forum, on the basis of the facts stated in the complaint and the evidence led thereon by the complainant, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.1,35,107/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 25.10.2000 till realization with costs of Rs.10,000/-

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission has dismissed the appeal holding that in the absence of any contest by the petitioner, the District Forum was right in allowing the complaint as the allegation made in the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant went unrebutted.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  In the absence of any controversion of the facts stated in the complaint and the rebuttal of the evidence led by the complainant, the District Forum as well as the State Commission were justified in allowing the complaint taking the version stated by the complainant in his complaint to be correct.  Dismissed.