Heard. 2. Respondent/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint before District Forum against Petitioner/Opposite Party on the allegations that it supplied/sent 3.0 K.G. Triosalen fir delivery to M/s Trends Exports Pvt. Ltd., Thane vide Invoice No. NMX/107 dated 24.7.2002 through first flight courier vide receipt No.115246814 dated 24.7.2002 in the name of the Opposite Party and that the material supplied to the Opposite Party by the complainant was amounting to ₹1,44,000/- and this material was to be released/delivered by the opposite party in favour of the M/s Trends Export Pvt. Ltd. after receiving the payment of ₹1,44,000/- i.e. invoice amount as has been mentioned in the forwarding letter dated 24.7.2002 and that the Opposite Party has deliberately delivered the material i.e. 3 K.G. Triasalen to M/s Trend Export Pvt. Ltd. without receiving payment of invoice amount of ₹1,44,000/-. The Opposite Party is negligent in performing its duties and there is deficiency in services on the part of opposite party. The Opposite Party has acted against the invoices/instructions issued by the complainant. 3. Petitioner in its reply took preliminary objection that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and it is not liable for any payment, which was to be made by M/s. Trend Export Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner was only acting as an agent and it is only M/s. Trend Export Pvt. Ltd., who can explain what is the dispute. 4. Initially, Consumer Complaint was rejected by the District Forum vide order dated 07.06.2005. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainant/respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which remanded back the matter to the District Forum, vide order dated 18.07.2006. 6. After remand, District Forum vide order dated 02.03.2007 partly allowed the complaint. 7. Being aggrieved both parties filed separate appeals. The State Commission vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, whereas appeal of respondent was allowed. 8. Hence, this revision. 9. Today, learned counsel for respondent states, that there is no objection if respondent is granted permission to implead the necessary party as per objection taken by the petitioner in its written statement and matter may be remanded back to the District Forum, to decide the same afresh after impleadment of the necessary party. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has no objection in this regard. 11. In view of the above, respondent/complainant is permitted to implead the necessary party in accordance with provision of law. Thereafter, District Forum shall decide the complaint afresh after hearing the parties. 12. Present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 13. Sum of ₹50,000/- lying deposited with the District Forum, if any, in terms of the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by this Commission, be refunded to the petitioner. 14. Dasti to both the parties. | 
