Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Service of notice against both respondents No. 1 and 2 has been considered to be valid. Today too none appears on behalf of respondents. Factual backgrounds of this case are that M/s Arya Vyasya Co-operative Marriage Trust was established by its members to render financial assistance to members at the time of marriage of their daughters. The complainant too joined scheme paying member fee and also registration charges. In terms of scheme a member had to pay Rs. 200/- on each marriage during period of scheme and trust was required to pay Rs. 50,000/- to member for marriage of daughter to be celebrated. The complainant claims to have paid Rs. 26,412/- towards the scheme. However when marriage of his daughter came to be celebrated and he moved management, office was found closed and there was no respite. It was after much persuasion that a cheque of Rs. 26,412/- was issued by OP 1 to complainant which was eventually dishonored by bank there being no sufficient fund in account. Eventually a consumer complaint came to be filed before District Forum. Since complainant did not take steps to secure presence of OP 1, complaint as such against OP 1 was dismissed. As OP 2 also did not appear despite issuance of notice, he too was set ex-parte in the proceedings. The District Forum however on evaluation of pleadings of complainant and also evidences put on record directed OP 2/petitioner to pay Rs. 26,412/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.5.1996 till realization alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1000/- for cost of proceeding. Aforesaid finding was affirmed in appeal by State Commission also. It is contended that even though petitioner was no where concerned with marriage trust nor even issued cheque acknowledging liability, both fora below holding petitioner liable has saddled petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 26,412/- to complainant which was the deposit made by him. Since by issuance of cheque OP 1 had impliedly acknowledged liability, finding of State Commission making OP 2 petitioner liable in absence of clinching evidence was patently erroneous. The order of State Commission is accordingly set aside and this revision petition succeeds but with no order as to cost.