Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.07.09 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 01/2009 titled as M/s. Hardayal Singh Patel Vs. M/s. Indira Priyadarshini Mahila Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. The State Commission while considering the applications moved by the complainant under Order 1 Rule 10 and under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC seeking amendment to the complaint and impleadment of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) of India and Reserve Bank of India as necessary opposite parties, besides the already impleaded parties, ..2.. not only declined the prayer of the complainant to amend the complaint and implead the Credit Guarantee Corporation and the Reserve Bank of India as necessary opposite parties but also dismissed the complaint itself with the direction to the complainant to approach any other appropriate forum if he so chooses. 2. We have heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the official liquidator who was present on the last date of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order as erroneous and legally untenable on the ground that the prayer made by the complainant by means of two applications were just and reasonable and ought to have been favourably considered by the State Commission because the controversy raised in the complaint pursuant to the defence pleas taken by the opposite pary bank could not be effectively answered in the absence of the parties sought to be impleaded. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has heavily replied upon the decision rendered by this Commission in R.P. Nos. 2528, 2529 & 462/06 –Reserve Bank . .3.. of India Vs. Eshwarappa & Anr. This Commission, going by the provisions of DICGI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 held that the consumer fora have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the nature as is the subject matter in the present case and the official liquidator has to abide by the final order passed by the consumer fora and to make payment of the amount which are crystallized by the said fora within the stipulated period. In view of the above position, the State Commission ought to have allowed the prayers made by the complainant, especially in order to decide the controversy effectively. Least it could do was to have dismissed the complaint itself even if it considered it not a fit case to allow the said applications. In our view, the order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 4. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The applications moved by the appellant/complainant are hereby ..4.. allowed and the Credit Guarantee Corporation as well as the Reserve Bank of India are allowed to be impleaded as opposite party nos. 3 & 4. The amended complaint and amended memo of parties shall be filed by the appellant before the State Commission on 10.03.10 when we direct the parties to appear before the State Commission to seek further directions in the matter. After which, the State Commission will decide the complaint in accordance with law.