IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because expression “any order” under S. 27 specifically does not use expression interim order, is irrelevant.

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.—The petitioner-Oriental Bank of Commerce has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack in Revision Petition No. 138 of 2014 vide Annexure-6, by which the learned State Commission has set aside the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Angul in C.C.No.10 of 2014 impleading the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 as a party in the consumer dispute case pending before it.

2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the complainant-opposite party no.1 filed a complaint before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Angul alleging that a sum of Rs. 50,000 was deducted from her account without her knowledge and consent, for which she raised a grievance but no action was taken by the Bank. According to her, on 30.11.2010, the Bank deducted a sum of Rs. 50,000 from her current account by mentioning “DD/CC issued” and the bank delayed in settling the account as a result of which the complainant-opposite party no.1 issued a lawyer’s notice on 24.10.2013 to which the Bank replied and stated that deduction was made at the instance of the complainant-opposite party no.1 as the amount has been utilized by her husband for taking the insurance policy. Therefore, through several letters, the complainant-opposite party no.1 demanded a copy of the document by which the Bank was instructed to debit an amount from her account stating that her husband had nothing to do with the account of her independent business firm. Such application was filed on 27.01.2014 i.e. more than three years after the money was illegally debited from her account as alleged. Therefore, the complainant-opposite party no.1 filed the aforementioned application seeking for the following relief:

(i) To refund Rs.50,000 to the complainant with interest @18% from the date of deduction till actual payment.

(ii) To pay compensation of Rs.50,000 to the Complainant towards the loss of time and money spent in running after the O.P. and his staffs and loss in business.

(iii) To pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant towards the mental agony and harassment suffered by him in that period.

(iv) To pay Rs.20,000 to the Complainant against the cost of litigation.

(v) To recover all the award money from the erring officer of the Bank.

(vi) Any other relief(s) the Forum thinks fit.”

3. The petitioner-Bank filed its reply stating that the amount has been debited towards payment of insurance premium in the name of Susant Kumar Nanda, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1. The proposal form was duly filled in by the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 but as he did not have sufficient credit balance in his account, on the instruction of the complainant-opposite party no.1 the amount has been debited from her account for the Demand Draft No. 801021 dated 30.11.2010. The complainant-opposite party no.1 is also a nominee in the said insurance policy and the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 has been paying the insurance premium regularly including the amount so deducted. On 2.12.2010, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 requested for change of date of birth of his wife-nominee.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 is a necessary party without whose presence the case cannot be effectively adjudicated, the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 in the Court below- Bank filed an application on 14.03.2014, seeking leave of the learned District Forum to add the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 as a party. Objection was filed by the complainant-opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-4 stating, inter alia, that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”, in short, to add a 3rd party, who is neither a “consumer” nor a “trader”