Heard learned counsel for petitioner on admission. Respondent who has been appearing in the proceeding, has chosen not to appear. Factual matrix are that respondent was a consumer of petitioner Corporation which supplied electricity in their premises. Allegedly it so happed that on 11.11.2003 after supply of electricity got disrupted for some time and when there was restoration of power with high voltage, domestic articles and also electric appliances got burnt and respondent allegedly suffered extensive damages. Eventually a consumer complaint came to be -2- filed with District Forum which was resisted by petitioner-Corporation on three fold counts. Firstly, that grid station log sheet did not exhibit supply of high voltage on that day at any moment; secondly, it was most unlikely that the meter would remain unburnt as has been the observation of Junior Engineer; and thirdly even the first information report that was lodged, would not show such extensive damages to the house articles and electrical appliances by fire. District Forum, however having overruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner-Corporation, while accepting complaint saddled petitioner-Corporation with liability to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, which was reduced in appeal to Rs.1 lakh by State Commission. Respondent had also grievance that despite complaint being lodged, no official of petitioner Corporation took pains to visit premises. Against bald assertion made by respondent about there being abrupt surge in voltage causing fluctuation in voltage, no credible evidence was put on record to bootress contentions raised. As against that petitioner Corporation has put reliance on grid station log sheet and observations made by Junior Engineer, which would unmistakably show that there was normal supply of electricity at the material time of incident and should there be such fluctuation in -3- voltage, it was most unlikely that meter would have remained unaffected. Even in first information report respondent had also attributed incident of fire due to short circuit in domestic system apart from fluctuation in voltage. Added to this, though respondent had a grievance about petitioner having not responded to complaint, on this count too there was no evidence about respondent ever taking recourse to public authority lodging such complaint against petitioner Corporation for not attending complaint pursuant to incident of fire. Conversely, petitioner had a defence that though they had Central Complaint Cell as well as complaint facility at district level for lodgment of complaint concerning supply of electricity, no complaint was ever lodged by respondent. Now adverting to other defence of petitioner Corporation, I find that though respondent had a case of electrical appliances and domestic goods of other neighbours also suffered damages due to high voltage, no one came forward to claim damages suffered by them. It seems that after arguments were closed in the proceeding respondent put on record affidavit of some neighbours to plug loopholes but none of them had claimed compensation to damages suffered by them. That apart there was also no clinching evidence -4- about extent of damages suffered by respondent. In backdrop of these features, there did not appear to be rationale for award of compensation by Fora below against alleged damages suffered by incident of fire, if any. Finding of State Commission as such was not sustainable and finding of Fora below is accordingly set aside and complaint is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Revision petition resultantly succeeds. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation that pursuant to an interim order of this Commission, petitioner has deposited Rs.1 lakh with District Forum, which they are now legible to receive back. The deposit of Rs.1 lakh be accordingly refunded to the petitioner Corporation on proper identification.