Heard Counsel for the petitioner.  There are concurrent findings of two fora below.  Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not properly served.  There is a clear and categorical finding of the State Commission that the second opposite party/petitioner was proceeded ex-parte as he failed to attend before the District Forum for hearing on 24.4.2007.  The State Commission further observed that the postal acknowledgements of both the opposite parties were received by the District Forum.  The District Forum after satisfying itself, proceeded ex-parte against the second opposite party/petitioner.    The petitioner had not put up any substantive defence in the proceedings.  The substantial question raised in the appeal related to service on the petitioner.  Both the fora below have held that the petitioner was served.  The State Commission has observed that second opposite party namely the petitioner being the supplier of the goods is jointly and severely liable.

In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of fora below in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.