No-one appears for the petitioner.  Even then we have considered the grounds set up by the petitioner in order to assail the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below.  In our view, going by the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and material produced on record, the fora below were fully justified in taking the view they have taken in dismissing the complaint inasmuch as the complainant utterly failed to establish the payment of the sum of
Rs. 2,21,000/-, which he claimed to have deposited with the respondent towards the purchase of shop in question.  The State Commission has answered the question by holding as under:

          “We have carefully gone through all the papers placed before us as well as oral submission put forth by both the learned counsels.  It is revealed that except the draft sale deed and copy of demand draft

-3-

in respect of the registration charges paid in favour of Sub-Registrar and receipt, there is no other documentary evidence to provide details of agreement between appellant and respondents.  The appellant/complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint the size of the premises he has purchased, the date of execution of agreement to sale, details of amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- said to have been paid, there are no copies of the cheque or D.D. placed on record to prove that the said amount was paid.  No date of giving him possession of the said premises is mentioned.  In fact, whatever the allegations and grievances are made in the complaint they are to be supported by relevant documents, especially agreement to sale deed.  In absence of said documents it is difficult to decide whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of respondents or whether they have played any unfair trade practice.  District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that in absence of any document it was difficult to take decision in respect of complaint of appellant and under given situation District Forum appears to have suggested to approach to Civil Court for proper adjudication of the complaint.  We therefore find no merit in the appeal and that the judgment and order passed by District Forum requires no interference.  Hence, we pass the following order:

1.    Appeal is dismissed.

2.    No order as to cost.”

3.    …...

2.      In view of the above, we see no illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Commission.

Dismissed.