Mr. S.A. Shah, President — This is an appeal by State Bank of Saurashtra, Main Branch, Surendranagar against the order of the Surendranagar District Forum in Complaint No. 14 of 91 dated 12.8.1991. The learned Judge has allowed the complaint of the opposite party and has passed an order directing the present appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 18,055/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the day the amounts are shown to have been credited in the pass book and Rs. 200/- by way of cost

2. The Law Officer of the appellant made two submissions that the complaint filed before the District Forum was in respect of the payment of Rs. 18,055/- paid by the father of Shri I.M. Khokhar, the employee of the Bank. The complainant in para 3 has clearly averred that she had deposited an amount of Rs. 18,055/- in her account but the said amount has not been credited by the Bank in its ledger account and on enquiry she found that one bank employee Mr. Khokhar has mis-appropriated that amount and on enquiry with Mr. Khokhar she came to know that the mis-appropriated amount of Rs. 18,055/- has been returned by Mr. Khokhar to be deposited in her account. The Bank having failed to deposite the said amount the complainant (Respondent) has prayed that the Bank may be directed to deposit Rs. 18,055/- in her account with running interest© 18% from the date the said amount was received by the Bank. The Bank has filed its written statement and stated that the father of Shri I.M. Khokhar, Shri Mohammad Khokhar has deposited the said amount with the Bank and not in the savings Bank account of the petitioner and by letter dated 24.7.89 has requested the Bank to return the amount (copy of the letter was also enclosed) and in these circumstances it was not possible for the Bank to credit this amount in the account of the complainant.

3. As stated above the complainant has prayed for the return of the amount paid by the father of Shri I.M. Khokhar who is employee of the Bank.

4. Mr. Vijaykumar has, therefore, submitted that the complainant had not put up the case that Mr. Khokhar employee of the Bank having mis-appropriated the aforesaid amount and he being an agent of the Bank, the Bank is vicariously liable to credit that amount in the account of the complainant. If such case would have been put up by the complainant the Bank could have properly replied and could have shown the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Smt. Shyam Devi reported in AIR SC 1263 wherein certain observation has been made by the Supreme Court in relation to the mis-appropriation of money by the Bank employee. However, the learned Judge’s decision on the ground that the Bank employee having mis-appropriated the money and has not given the credit of that money to the account of the complainant, the Bank was vicariously liable, to our opinion, is not sustainable without specific averment in the pleading.

5. However, the amount of Rs. 18,055/- having been paid by the father of the employee should be credited in the account of the complainant or not which to our opinion was the specific case of the complainant before the District Forum.

6. We feel that the employee Mr. I.M. Khokhar who is likely to be affected by the decision of the District Forum should be made the party and the appellant has agreed to do so. We are very much aware that the complainant is a very poor lady and a teacher and relying upon the Bank employee deposited her life savings in the Bank, and she should not suffer on account of technicalities of litigation. We, therefore, permit the complainant to amend the complaint accordingly and in order to safe-guard her interest we also direct that the amount received by the Bank from Mr. Khokhar (father) may be deposited by opening a special account and pay interest permissible to long term deposit so that ultimately if the complainant succeeds, she can get the interest

7. We, therefore, allow this appeal and remand the complaint to the District