Petitioner/opp.party is engaged in supplying drinking water by charging Rs. 100/- p.m. Respondent/complainant obtained water connection by depositing Rs. 3,000/- as security charges and he has been continuously making monthly payment for the water consumed to the petitioner. Respondent alleged that the petitioner had laid pipe-lines passing through the passage and on west side, this pipe-line was broken and leaking for the past 6-7 months and because of this water collected in the ground, cracks had developed in his entire house. He filed complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- which was contested by the petitioner. District forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 2,23,000/- as assessed by H.S. Malik, Architect. Order passed by State Commission would show that this award is mainly based on the report of said Architect at pages 31-34 and the photographs Exb. P-6 to P-28 showing damage to the house of the respondent. It is in the impugned order that the petitioner did not file any objection to the Architect’s report. In support of this report, the Architect had filed his affidavit. Having heard Ms. Vivekta Singh and having considered the said evidence, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission affirming the order of District Forum awarding amount of Rs. 2,23,000/- towards damage caused to the house by the petitioner. Revision petition is dismissed being without any substance.