T.C.BLASUBRAMANIAM Vs. CONSUMER PROTECTION CELL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESIDENT Petitioner was the respondent No. 5 before the District Forum. Complaint against the -petitioner and other respondents No. 2. 3. 4 and 6 partners of M/s. Dhanlakshmi Chit Funds opposite party No. 1 was that money which had become due to the complainant was not being paid by them District Forum however held that respondent No. 5 was not liable though it decreed the complaint against other respondents.

(2.) COMPLAINANT went in appeal before the State Commission against the respondent T.C. Balasubramaniam who¢ had been let off by the District Forum. State Commission found that there was another firm Dhanlakshmi Finance where there were six partners of which Balasubramaniam was one of the partners. State Commission after examining the records of both the Dhanlakshmi Chit Fund and Dhanlakshmi Finance that the amount was perhaps deposited by the complainant with Dhanlakshmi Finance and that it could be that complaint was wrongly instituted against Dhanlakshmi Chit Fund but doing complete justice between the parties. State Commission remitted the matter back to the District Forum with a direction to decide the matter within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order in our view, substantial justice has been done by the State Commission and we do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause(b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed.