LexRAYTHARA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. versus CHANDRAKALA R. DAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RA YTHARA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. A v. CHANDRAKALA R. DAS NOVEMBER 8, 2006 [ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B Indian Contract Act, 1872: Complainant and others took loan from Bank by pledging jewellery- Jewel/ery stolen from the Bank-Bank fixing certain rate in return of the C value of the jewellery stolen-Rate so f1Xed accepted by all the borrowers except the complainant-Complainant demanding higher rates-District Consumer Forum directed upward revision in the rate-Affirmed by State Commission-Revision petition dismissed by National Commission-On appeal, Held: Both the State Commission and the National Commission D passed cryptic orders-They failed to discuss about the effect of the stand taken by the Bank on complainant/Borrowers-Hence, order of the Commission set aside and matter remitted to the National Commission for consideration afresh-Directions issued. The respondent-Complainant availed jewel loans from the appellant- E Bank by pledging gold ornaments. The gold ornaments kept in the Bank were stolen. An FIR was lodged at the police station and a criminal trial is pending. The appellant-Bank, with a view to return value of the gold ornaments so pledged, convened a meeting of all the borrowers and resolved that in lieu of stolen jewellery, each of them shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 410/- per gram, the prevailing market rate of gold at the time of the theft. It was also resolved F that no interest would be charged on all such jewel loans. One of the borrowers issued a notice to the Bank demanding higher rates for the gold ornaments pledged. Later, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking for direction to the Bank to make payment at the rate of Rs. 573/- per gram for the stolen jewellery along with making charges G and compensation for non-delivery of gold ornaments and litigation expenses. The District Forum allowed the petition. On appeal, the State Forum held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order of the District Forum. 1'\\~ nvisi()n pttition filed before the National Commission was dismissed. 751 H A B c D E F 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. Hence the present appeal. The appellant contended that neither the State Commission nor the National Commission considered the effect of the resolution passed by the Bank fixing the rate per gram of the gold for the purpose of making payment to the customer/borrowers of Loan; and that 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 would prefer to reopen the matter. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 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-Bank. .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. Hence, the order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration for the purpose of considering the effect of the decision taken by the Bank and accepted by about 400 similarly situated borrowers. (754-E-F-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4724 of2006. From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2004. of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2292 of2004. V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAY AT, 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 dLmissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant- H Bank observing that the short order passed by the State Consumer Dispute ~ ' ' RA YTHARA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. v. CHANDRAKALA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.