Delay of 25 days in filing the revision petition is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2011 passed by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal no. 8 / 443, the original opposite party service provider has preferred the present petition. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 11.05.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kashmere Gate, Delhi by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint by holding the opposite party deficient in rendering service and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.73,970/-, value of the consignment, with interest @9% p.a. with effect from 25.01.2006 till the date of realisation, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party filed an appeal but without any success. 2. We have heard Mr. Abhineet Gulati, counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. The consumer dispute raised in the complaint related to the non-delivery of a parcel containing a certain medical preparation valued at Rs.73,970/- which the complainant had handed over to the opposite party for its carriage for delivery to M/s. Candor Biotech Limited, Alamair, Lalru, District Patiala, Punjab and which was not delivered to the consignee. Although the petitioner took a plea that the consignment was duly handed over to the consignee but the District Forum found that it was not substantiated therefore, it allowed the complaint in above manner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order as not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence and material brought on record in its correct perspective. He submits that all the requisite material in possession of the petitioner was produced which would show that consignment was duly delivered to the consignee. He submits that the affidavit of delivery boy, named Arun Kumar could not be produced as he had left the office the of franchisee Mr. Brij Kishore. We had noted this submission simply to be rejected because heavy onus lay on the petitioner-service provider to establish it with certainty that the parcel in question which was entrusted to them was delivered to the consignee. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Fora below have passed just and proper order. In our view, the orders passed by the Fora below do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which calls for any interference by this Commission. Dismissed.