M/s Kiran Art Printer, which was opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition.  Petitioner is being represented through its proprietor Sh. S. P. Gupta.

          Counsel for the respondent is not present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

-2-

          Case of the respondent/complainant is that they had placed an order of printing of 2000 brochures.  After approval of the sample shown by the petitioner, respondent paid a sum of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner as labour charges for printing of brochures.  According to the respondent, brochures were not printed as per sample shown which was rejected.  Respondent represented to the petitioner that the brochures printed were not as per the sample shown to him earlier and requested the petitioner to print the brochures again on which the petitioner asked the respondent to provide additional paper to print the brochures.  It is admitted case before us that the respondent was supposed to supply the paper which he had already supplied while placing the order.  Respondent instead of providing the paper again, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          Petitioner in spite of service did not appear before the District Forum.  Petitioner was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.  District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent filed an appeal before State Commission.  Petitioner  did

-3-

not appear before the State Commission as well.  The State Commission, taking note of the fact that the petitioner/opposite party had failed to put in appearance and file Written Statement before the District Forum, came to the conclusion that the facts stated in the complaint had to be taken to be correct as the same had been supported by the complainant by way of an affidavit.   That until and unless the facts stated in the complaint and the affidavit filed by the respondent were refuted, the facts stated in the complaint had to be taken as correct for deciding the dispute.  The State Commission accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to refund the sum of Rs. 14,700/- being cost of the paper supplied by the respondent for printing the brochures and  Rs.1000/- by way of costs.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The facts stated by the respondent in his complaint and the affidavit filed

-4-

by him in support thereof, remained unrebutted as the petitioner had permitted himself to be proceeded ex-parte.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.  No costs.