PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (he State Commission for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the petitioner only against OP no.3/respondent no.3 and remitted the matter back to the District Forum as against OP no.3 only and dropped the complaint against OPs no.1 and 2/respondent nos.1 and 2. The impugned order reads as under:- i) Appeal is allowed only against Respondent/original Opponent No.3. (ii) Impugned order as against Respondent/Original Opponent Nos.1 &2 stands confirmed. (iii) The Consumer Complaint No.188/2008 is remitted back to the Forum as against Respondent/original Opponent no.3 only, in the light of the observations made in the body of the order. (iv) Both parties, i.e. Appellant/original Complainant and Respondent/original Opponent No.3 shall appear before the Forum on 03.06.2011. (v) The Forum shall give opportunity, if so desires by the Appellant/original Complainant to correct the description of original Opponent No.3. If such application is made, that should be decided on merit after hearing Opponent no.3. (vi) The Forum shall also give proper opportunity to the parties before it, i.e. Complainant and Opponent No.3 to lead their respective evidence as per Provisions of Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereafter them, settle the dispute according to law. (vii) In the given circumstances, both the parties in appeal shall bear their own costs. (viii) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner, who was original complainant before the District Forum, that he had purchased a Tata Indigo car in the month of August, 2005 from M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kandivali (W), Mumbai, respondent no.3 herein. While an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- against the total purchase price of the car is alleged to have been paid by the complainant-petitioner to the agent of respondent no.3, he also applied for car loan of Rs.4,51,000/- from the HDFC Bank Ltd. who are respondents no.1 and 2 in this petition and were OPs in the same order before the District Forum. The loan amount sanctioned by the respondent bank to purchase the said car is alleged to have been directly released by the respondent bank to respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 failed to deliver the possession of the vehicle purchased. It is also alleged by the petitioner that instead of making delivery of the said car to him, the respondent no.3 had given delivery thereof to another person called eepak Devendra Mehta Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3/OP no.3, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum in which the Chairman of the HDFC Bank was shown as OP no.1 and the Branch Manager of the Bank was made as OP no.2 in addition to the Manager/Director of M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd. being included as OP No.3. On notice, OPs appeared before the District Forum. The financial help provided by the HDFC Bank for purchase of the car through a car loan was admitted by the HDFC Bank but the respondent no.3 submitted that they had no dealing with the petitioner and they had dealing with one Mr.Deepak Devendra Mehta to whom the car had been delivered. Vide its impugned order dated 31.07.2010, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the facts of this case showed that this is not a complaint which can be tried by a Consumer Forum in a summary trial under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such held that the complaint is not maintainable before it and that the complainant should have preferred a Forum of conventional Court to thrash out the complicated issues by appropriate legal proceedings. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 3. As stated above, vide its impugned order the State Commission remanded the matter to the District Forum for giving an opportunity to the parties for leading evidence and to settle the dispute according to law after hearing the parties. Since the State Commission, while remitting the matter back to the District Forum, dropped the complaint against respondents no.1 and 2 who had been made OPs no.1 and 2 by the complainant before the District Forum, the petitioner has now challenged this order before us. 4. We have heard Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.1 and 2 and Mrs.Bindu Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.3. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has committed grave mistake in observing in its impugned order that the petitioner did not have any grievance against the respondent bank and hence reached the conclusion that the respondent no.1 and 2 were impleaded unnecessarily as the opponents. She submitted that the District Forum without reaching a final conclusion in respect of the complaint in question had simply observed that in view of the complicated nature of issue involved the same was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and hence dismissed the complaint by its order by which the petitioner was directed to approach a Civil Court competent to take cognizance of the dispute. It is the contention of the learned counsel that since the State Commission has not looked into the merits of the case, it would be wrong on its part to dismiss the complaint against the respondents no.1 and 2/OPs no.1 and 2. In any case, it was not correct on the part of the State Commission to hold that since the consumer dispute was in respect of non- delivery of the vehicle by the dealer , i.e., the respondent no.3 to the petitioner/complainant, the presence of the bank/financial institution could be dispensed with. She submitted that once the evidence is led by the concerned parties, the presence of the respondent bank who was included as opposite party would be absolutely essential. She, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order of the State Commission be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for deciding it on merits by retaining the respondents no.1 and 2 as parties to the case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has also submitted that the matter be remanded to the State Commission and not to the District Forum. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has reiterated that the grievance of the complainant is mainly against the persons, namely, Mr. Vilas P. Sawant, Mr. Sandeep Kandalkar and Mr. Ajay Sawant who, according to the complainant had induced him to deal with them and in that process he was cheated by them. He submitted that the role of the bank was limited to grant of a car loan and recovery thereof from the petitioner and as such the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint against the respondent bank is correct and needs to be confirmed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions raised before us. The limited issue which has arisen for our consideration in this case is as to whether the impugned order of the State Commission dropping the names of respondents no.1 and 2 thereby dismissing the complaint against these two respondents while remitting the matter for a fresh trial to the District Forum is correct in the eye of law. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had taken a car loan from the respondent bank. It is also not in dispute that the respondent bank was getting the payment of EMIs for some time in repayment of the said loan. According to the petitioner, the respondent bank released the amount of car loan directly to the dealer. We do not see any denial to this aspect, which in any case is presumed to be true as per the general practice in which the car loan usually is released to the dealer of the car (which in this case would be respondent no.3). This being the situation, the respondent bank needs to specifically point out and produce documentary evidence in support thereof as to how and to whom the cheque on account of the car loan was released by the respondent bank. Such documents would invariably indicate the correct name of the person on whose behalf the amount was being released by the respondent bank to the dealer. This aspect has not been dealt with by the State Commission and there is no observation in this regard. In the circumstances, when the State Commission thought it appropriate to remand the matter to the District Forum for a fresh trial after considering the evidence to be adduced by the respondent no.3 and the petitioner in support of their contentions and take a decision on merits after hearing the parties, it is not understood as to how the presence of the respondent bank could be dispensed with by dismissing the complaint against the bank. In that view of the matter and to this extent, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be sustained in the eye of law being not based on any acceptable evidence before it. 9. It is noted from the revision petition that the District Forum had dismissed the complaint as not being maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act simply because in its opinion it felt that the dispute involved complicated questions of law and facts. It is further seen from paras 3 (II), (III) and (IV) of the revision petition that the respondent bank failed to produce certain documents as per the direction given by the District Forum and as such the District Forum did not reach any conclusion based on evidence or merits of the case but only on its impression that because of the nature of the dispute and complications involved, the complaint was not maintainable. In the circumstances, when the petitioner has alleged non- delivery of the vehicle by the respondent no.3 to him for which the loan amount had been released directly by the respondent bank to the respondent no.3-dealer, it is necessary that the respondent bank clarifies this position in respect of the person on whose behalf the car loan cheque was released to the dealer/respondent no.3 before he could be held liable for deficiency in service in respect of non delivery of the car to the petitioner. In other words, the presence of the respondent bank is absolutely essential for reaching any conclusion or taking a final view on the complaint in question. The observations of the State Commission to the effect that the main grievance of the petitioner being against the respondent no.3, the respondent bank has no role to play is incorrect and not based on proper appreciation of the submissions made in the complaint and the written statement of the parties. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission to remand the matter back to the District Forum for recording evidence and hearing the parties afresh but we do not agree with the impugned order regarding the dismissal of the complaint against the respondents no.1 and 2 thereby exempting them from appearing and leading the evidence before the District Forum. We, therefore, accept the revision petition partly and set aside the impugned order to the extent that it dismisses the complaint against the respondent no.1 and 2. Rest of the impugned order is upheld. Consequently, the District Forum is directed to give proper opportunity to the petitioner and all the respondents who were OPs before the District Forum to lead their respective evidence and thereafter settle the dispute after hearing the parties in accordance with the provisions of law. We make it clear that the petitioner and the respondents would be at liberty to lead their evidence with reference to the allegations of deficiency in service made in the original complaint and the District Forum shall take a decision on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by the State Commission in its impugned order. 11. The revision petition thus stands partly allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions with the parties bearing their own costs.