This revision is directed against the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi dated 23.5.2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum. 2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the appellant (petitioner herein) filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging that he purchased a Nokia N-900 Mobile set from M/s Sai Communications, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi vide cash memo dated 30.6.2010. The phone was carrying one year warranty from the date of its purchase. Respondent No.1 (opposite party No.1) is the importer of the phone and respondent No.2 (opposite party No.2) is service centre of Nokia. It was alleged in the complaint that from the day one mobile set was not working properly and occasionally it used to get hanged. The camera was also not working. Its quality was also poor. In July, 2010 the complainant- petitioner approached opposite party No.2 for rectification of the problem but opposite party No.2 failed to do the needful and stated that there was some inherent problem in the phone. Opposite party No.2 failed to rectify the defects, nor the opposite parties agreed to replace the phone or refund its cost. Claiming this to be deficiency in service consumer complaint was filed. 3. The opposite parties despite of service of notice failed to put in appearance before the District Forum. They were therefore proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum on consideration of the complaint and the affidavit evidence of the complainant dismissed the complaint with following observations: - ill/Cash Memo of M/s Sai Communication B-1/235, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi No.36, dated 30/06/2010 shows that the mobile handset bearing IMEI No.35693803584423 was purchased for Rs.28,300/- in cash but the bill/cash memo does not reflect the name of the purchaser to prove that the same was purchased by the complainant. Further, all mobile phones are assigned a unique 15 digit IMEI Code upon production. The IMEI number mentioned in the said bill of M/s Sai Communication differs from the one mentioned by the complainant in the complaint and both the IMEI Nos. do not conform to the 15 digit IMEI code standard laid down. In these circumstances, the allegation that the handset in question was purchased by the complainant and its genuinely is hard to believe that thus cannot be accepted unless proved. There is nothing on record to show that handset was purchased by the complainant and its genuinely also not free from doubt. Further on perusal of the record we see that the service job sheet bearing No.148438527/110616/41 dated 16/06/2011 submitted by the complainant forwards proof of having submitted his mobile handset to the OP-II it pertains to a yet another IMEI No.356938035684-23 and it has been issued to some Nitin Aggarwal, whose name appear on the job-sheet as proof of submission of the handset bearing IMEI No. 35693803584423 by him for necessary repairs to the Nokia Care Centre being OP-II. The said job-sheet does not pertain to the complainant mobile for which the complainant has been filed. In the absence of documentary evidence to prove his allegations the same are not acceptable. The complainant has failed to prove that the mobile in question developed some defects during the warranty period and has submitted the same for necessary repairs to the OP-II herein and the same was not attended to by it. I find no force in this complaint and it is dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the petitioner preferred an appeal. The State Commission after hearing the petitioner concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal at admission stage with following observations: - he case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Nokia Mobile set No. N-900 on 30.4.2010 for a sum of Rs. 28,300/- bearing IMEI No. 35693803584423 and having one year warranty. The complainant has filed a photocopy of Cash Memo dated 30.6.2010. This document clearly goes to show that the set Nokia N-900 was purchased by Nitin Aggarwal. The complaint was filed by Sh. Ankush Mangla Agrawal but he has not filed any document to show that Nokia set was purchased by him. It is not the case of the complainant/appellant that Nitin Aggrawal who purchased the hand set was minor at the relevant time and the complaint was filed on behalf of Nitin Aggarwal, minor. Further, the complainant has not pointed any relationship with the Nitin Aggrawal. As to how the minor Nitin Aggrawal is related to Sh. Ankush Mangla Agrawal, there is nothing on material on the record. Whether any approval has been given by Sh. Nitin Aggarwal for the use of the mobile to the complainant, there is no iota of evidence. There is one more aspect in this case. The contention of the complainant/appellant is that on 16.6.2011, the set became out of order and it was given to OP-2/Respondent-2 for repair and job sheet was issued. The copy of the job sheet was filed. In this photocopy of the job-sheet, Mobile number is not mentioned. In the Cash memo, IMEI No. is mentioned as 356938035844231 whereas in the job-sheet, the IMEI No. is mentioned as 356938035684423. Obviously, the job-sheet which is filed by the complainant in the District Forum is different. The District Forum has considered the entire evidence and has come to the correct view and we find no irregularities and illegality in this order. 5. Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Authorised Representative of the petitioner submits that State Commission has committed grave error in confirming the order of the District Forum ignoring the fact that mention of wrong IMEI number in the cash memo was only a clerical error. He further contends that the foras below have failed to appreciate that IMEI number of cash memo is mentioned by the dealer and error in this regard cannot be noticed by the purchaser in ordinary course. It is further submitted that Nokia phone developed defects since very beginning. Therefore, the foras below ought to have allowed the complaint. Thus it is urged that the impugned orders be set aside and complaint be allowed. 6. Shri Pranay Jha, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has argued in support of the impugned orders. He has drawn our attention to the photocopy of the cash memo in support of purchase of Nokia N-900 phone dated 30.06.2010 purportedly issued by M/s Sai Communications, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. He has argued that from this document it is obvious that the petitioner has purchased the Nokia phone from M/s Sai Communications who was not made party to the complaint for the reasons best known to the petitioner and for this reason also the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On perusal of record we find that both the foras below on careful appreciation of evidence have dismissed the complaint. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the foras below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction particularly when no jurisdictional error or irregularity in the order of the State Commission has been pointed out. We may also note that admittedly Nokia phone was purchased from M/s Sai Communications who was deliberately not made party in the complaint. Proprietor of M/s Sai Communications was not even produced as a witness to explain the mismatch of IMEI number mentioned in the cash memo and IMEI number of the phone in question. In absence of evidence in this regard it is difficult to conclude that the Nokia set taken to service station is the same which was purchased by the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussion above, revision petition is dismissed. 9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.