On 28.5.2004, the appellant Bank filed its statement of defence and denied its liability to pay the amount with interest.
On 4.8.2001 a huge quantity of gold ornaments including those pledged by the companyplainant with the Bank, were stolen.
Background facts giving rise to the present appeal in a nutshell are as follows The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant 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.
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.
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.
Appellant Bank requested the companyplainant to accept the rate fixed on the basis of Resolution dated 17.1.2004.
On 8.3.2004 the companyplainant filed a companyplaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi in short District Forum with a prayer for a 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 companypensation for number delivery of gold ornaments amounting to Rs.25,000/ and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/ .
On 1.10.2003 the appellant Bank submitted its claim to the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that neither the State Commission number the National Commission companysidered the effect of the decision taken on 17.1.2004 in a meeting where more than 400 borrowers had accepted the rate.
Information was lodged at the police station and a criminal trial is pending.
It was also resolved that numberinterest shall be charged on all such jewel loans.
On 17.1.2004, the appellant Bank, with a view to return value of the gold ornaments of the pledges companyvened a meeting where more than 400 persons, who were jewel loan borrowers and authorities of the companyperative societies were present.
There was numberdefault of service and number 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.
Complainant issued a numberice to the Bank demanding higher value for the gold ornament pledged.
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 numberinterference.
