(1.) PETITIONER were the opposite parties. Respondent No. 1/complainant allegedly deposited through cheques drawn on Central Bank of India, the amounts of Rs. 50,000 on 23.11.2001, Rs. 50,000 on 28.12.2001, Rs. 25,000 on 30.1.2002, Rs. 25,000 on 1.1.2002, Rs. 50,000 on 8.2.2002, Rs. 25,000 on 12.2.2002, Rs. 25,000 on 12.2.2002, Rs. 25,000 on 18.2.2002, Rs. 50,000 on 6.3.2002, Rs. 25,000 on 20.3.2002, Rs. 25,000 on 25.3.2002, Rs. 50,000 on 30.11.2002 with the petitioner No. 1/opposite party No. 1 petitioner No. 2/opposite party No. 2 was alleged to be the incharge of the affairs of petitioner No. 1 at the relevant time. On non-refunding the said amounts with interest totalling Rs. 5,09,513 the respondent No. 1 filed complaint which was contested by the petitioners. The District Forum allowed the complaint and petitioners 1 and 2 were directed to refund the said amounts with interest. Dissatisfied with District Forum's order, the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission.
(2.) THRUST of argument of Mr. Rohit Singha for petitioners was that respondent No. 1 was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; petitioner No. 2 and her family members had invested money in two firms run and owned by respondent No. 1 and the amounts due from the firms are more than Rs. 40 lakh which has to be set off from the amount deposited by respondent No. 1 with petitioner No. 1. Plea in regard to respondent No. 1 not being consumer was also raised before the Fora below and has been decided against the petitioners! In revisional jurisdiction we are not inclined to interfere with that concurrent finding returned by the Fora below. Since C.P.C. does not apply to consumer Fora the plea of set-off is not available to the petitioners in this easel Revision petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such.