http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4724 of 2006

PETITIONER: Raythara Sahakari Bank Ltd.

RESPONDENT: Chandrakala R. Das

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/11/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25317 of 2004)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New  Delhi (in short the ’National Commission’) summarily  dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant-Bank  observing that the short order passed by the State Consumer  Dispute Redressal Commission, Bangalore, Karnataka (in  short the ’State Commission’) is absolutely clear and needs no  interference.   

Background facts giving rise to the present appeal in a  nutshell are as follows:

The respondent, (hereinafter referred to as the  ’complainant’) availed jewel loans from the appellant-Bank by  pledging  gold ornaments on different dates in August 2000,  February 2001, April 2001, May 2001 and June 2001.   Appellant-Bank insured gold ornaments kept in the locked  iron safe of the Bank for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with United  India Insurance Company Limited. On 4.8.2001 a huge  quantity of gold ornaments including those pledged by the  complainant with the Bank, were stolen.  Information was  lodged at the police station and a criminal trial is pending. On  1.10.2003 the appellant-Bank submitted its claim to the  Insurance Company but the same was repudiated. On  17.1.2004, the appellant-Bank, with a view to return value of  the gold ornaments of the pledges convened a meeting where  more than 400 persons, who were jewel loan borrowers and  authorities of the cooperative societies were present.  It was  resolved that each person who had pledged ornaments shall be  paid at the rate of Rs.410/- per gram which was the prevailing  market rate at the time of theft.  It was also resolved that no  interest shall be charged on all such jewel loans.  Complainant  issued a notice to the Bank demanding higher value for the  gold ornament pledged. Appellant-Bank requested the  complainant to accept the rate fixed on the basis of Resolution  dated 17.1.2004. On 8.3.2004 the complainant filed a  complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Udupi (in short ’District Forum’) with a prayer for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

direction to the appellant-Bank to pay the entire amount with  upto date interest in respect of six jewel loan accounts and to  pay present market rate of gold at the rate of Rs.573/- per  gram along with making charges and a compensation for non- delivery of gold ornaments amounting to Rs.25,000/- and  litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. On 28.5.2004, the  appellant-Bank filed its statement of defence and denied its  liability to pay the amount with interest.  There was no default  of service and non-delivery of the jewel was on account of the  admitted theft in the Bank for which criminal case has been  instituted and insurance claim has been lodged.   Subsequently, the appellant-Bank filed an affidavit before the  District Forum stating that it is willing to pay at the rate fixed  for all the jewel loan borrowers.  The District Forum held that  the value of the gold was to be computed at the rate of  Rs.573/- per gram which was the claim, though the price of  gold prevailing on the date of order was Rs.593/- per gram.   Accordingly, it was held that value of gold payable was  Rs.67,041/-. Appellant preferred an appeal before the State  Forum which by a short order held that there was no illegality  or irregularity in the order of the District Forum and if there  was any insurance policy covering the theft, it was open to the  appellant-Bank to lodge a claim and pursue the remedy  available. The revision petition filed before the National  Commission as noted supra was dismissed.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that neither the State Commission nor  the National Commission considered the effect of the decision  taken on 17.1.2004 in a meeting where more than 400  borrowers had accepted the rate.  No other complaint has been  lodged, but taking advantage of the order passed by the  District Forum as upheld by the State Commission and the  National Commission, large number of people are trying to  reopen the matter.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order  of the Forums and submitted that a realistic view has been  taken by the District Forum which was upheld by the State  Commission and the National Commission.   

We find that all through stand of the appellant-Bank has  been that all the borrowers except the respondent have  accepted the rate arrived at consensually at the meeting. The  complainant did not dispute that such a decision had been  taken. It is not clear as to whether the complainant had  attended the meeting which was convened and where all the  borrowers were given the chance to participate. The decision in  the meeting undisputedly was to the effect that the value of  gold on the date of theft was to be paid.  It appears that there  was no other complaint except the one under consideration.   Both the State Commission and the National Commission  passed cryptic orders and did not discuss even the various  stands taken by the appellant. It was open to the State  Commission and the National Commission to consider the  stand relating to acceptance of rate fixed at the meeting and  its effect on the complainant’s claim.  But, that has not been  done.  We, therefore, set aside the order of the National  Commission and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration  for the purpose of considering the effect of the decision taken  on 17.1.2004 where about 400 similarly situated borrowers  had accepted the rate. We make it clear that we have not  expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.  

Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

to costs.