Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that she would be filing Vakalatnama today with the Registry. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. Complainant petitioner filed complaint before learned State Commission and submitted that complainant stock in the godown was hypothecated to opposite party no. 1 respondent no. 1 and this stock was insured by opposite party no. 2 and respondent no. 2 which was damaged in fire during subsistence of policy. As claim was repudiated by respondent no. 2 complainant filed complaint before Learned State Commission. Respondent no. 2 filed written statement before Learned State Commission. Vide impugned order Learned State Commission dismissed complaint against respondent no. 2 at admission stage and admitted against respondent no. 1 and directed to issue notice to opposite party no. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 had admitted issuance of policy and in such circumstances respondent no. 2 is necessary party and Learned State Commission ought not to have dismissed complaint against respondent no. 2 at admission stage. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 supported contention of petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that as no intimation was given to respondent no. 2 by the complainant or by opposite party no. 1 before damage by fire, learned State Commission has rightly dismissed complaint against respondent no. 2 and in these circumstances revision petition be dismissed. Perusal of record reveals that complainant stock lying in gowdown was insured by respondent no. 2 which damaged in fire during subsistence of policy. Respondent no. 2 has admitted fact of issuing insurance policy in its written statement. Apparently, respondent no. 2 is a necessary party in the compliant and Learned State Commission ought not to have dismissed complaint against respondent no. 2. No reason has been given while dismissing complaint against respondent no. 2. As far contention of respondent no. 2 is concerned, respondent no. 2 can raise all these objections before State Commission and State Commission could decide this aspect by speaking order. Perusal of Exhibit H further reveals that Sr. Divisional Manager was writing letters to Regional Manager recommending that claim be honoured. In such circumstances respondent no. 2 is necessary party and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing the complaint against respondent no. 2. Consequently, impugned order dated 21.08.2012 passed by Learned State Commission, Maharashtra in CC No. 11/296, /s Nazneen Enterprises Vs. The Union bank of India & Ors. is set aside and opposite party no. 2 respondent no. 2 is treated as necessary party in the complaint and learned State Commission is directed to issue notice to respondent no. 2 for further proceedings. State Commission will decide complaint in accordance with law after hearing on all the legal aspects. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on the date already fixed.