PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in S.C. Case No. FA/190/2011 – The Manager, UCO Bank Vs. Sri Santosh Kumar Ray by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent opened a Saving Bank A/c. in the joint name of himself and his wife and he also took one locker in petitioner’s Bank. They used to keep golden ornaments of about 16.5 Bharis in the locker. On 31.7.2009, he went to the Bank to operate locker, but locker did not open. Manager of the Bank pushed his Master-key second time and the complainant also pushed his key again, then the locker opened, but he found that locker box was empty and all the ornaments lying in the locker were stolen. His FIR was not recorded by Police Station. Later on, he filed complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and complaint was sent under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station and FIR was registered. Theft was committed in connivance with staff of the Bank. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP did not appear before District Forum. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed Petitioner Bank to pay compensation of Rs.3,53,380/- towards the value of the stolen ornaments and further allowed Rs.1000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as OP before District Forum, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against the petitioner and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law. Even if it is held that petitioner was not a party in the complaint, matter may be remanded back to learned District Forum for impleading petitioner as party and for deciding complaint afresh. 5. Perusal of record reveals that complainant impleaded following persons as OPs: 1. Sri Ranajit Bhattacherjee Senior Manager, as on dated 31.07.2009 United Commercial Bank, Basirhat Branch North 24 Paraganas, Pin - 743 411 (W.B.) 2. Sri Bholanath Sarkar Manager, as on dated 31.07.2009 United Commercial Bank, Basirhat Branch North 24 Paraganas, Pin 743 411 (W.B.) In the complaint nowhere petitioner UCO Bank has been impleaded as a party. Notices were sent to OPs and when they did not appear, District Forum proceeded ex-parte, but no order was passed against the OPs, but complaint was allowed against the petitioner and petitioner Bank was directed to pay compensation, though, petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the complaint before District Forum. 6. In appeal filed by the petitioner before State Commission, complainant objected that as the Bank was not party before District Forum, appeal was not maintainable, but learned State Commission held that appeal filed by the Bank was maintainable. This finding is correct because District Forum allowed complaint against the Bank and not against the Bank officials. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that Bank Officials acting as agent of the Bank learned District forum rightly allowed complaint against the Bank and learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal. This argument is devoid of force because officials of the Bank were not acting as agents of the Petitioner Bank, but were employees of the Petitioner Bank. Without impleading Bank as OP in the complaint no order should have been passed by District Forum against the Bank. Not only this, no opportunity was given to the Petitioner Bank to contest the complaint before District Forum and in such circumstances, order passed by learned District Forum against petitioner was not proper. District Forum has not allowed complaint against the OP officials in the complaint. Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal on the basis of observations of District Forum that officials of the Bank were negligent. Until and unless petitioner was impleaded as a party before District Forum, no order should have been passed by District Forum against petitioner and in such circumstances; the impugned order is liable to set aside. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in case impugned order is set aside the matter may be remanded back to learned District Forum for impleading petitioner as a party and for fresh decision of the complaint, which prayer is reasonable. 8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 7.4.2011 passed by learned State Commission in S.C. Case No. FA/190/2011 – The Manager, UCO Bank Vs. Sri Santosh Kumar Ray and order of District Forum dated 10.3.2011 passed in CC Case No. 283/2010 – Sri Santosh Kr. Ray Vs. Sri Ranajit Bhattacharjee and Ors. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned District Forum with liberty to complainant to move an application for impleadment of petitioner as OP and learned District Forum if law permits will implead petitioner as OP and decide the complaint in accordance with law. 9. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 6.1.2015. | 
