JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant seeks to challenge the Order dated 31.08.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2190/2020, dismissing the Writ Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein challenging the Order dated 15.11.2019, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCDRC’) in Revision Petition No.2196/2019.

2. Shorn of details, the facts of the case are as under:

a) It is the case of the Appellant herein that he purchased two gold bars of 999.9 purity weighing 500 grams each from Bank of India (Respondents No.4 & 5 herein) and deposited the same with the State Bank of India (Respondents No.2 & 3 herein)

under a scheme called ‘SBI Gold Deposit Scheme’. It is stated that as per the Scheme, for determination of actual weight and purity of the gold, the gold bars were sent to Government of India Mint for testing their purity by melting. It is stated that on melting the gold bars, their purity was found to be 999.9 purity, however, there was a nominal loss to the extent of 0.04% of the weight of the gold bars during the process of melting. It is stated that as certified by India Government Mint, the weight of the gold in 995 purity would be 502.161gms. for one bar and 501.809 gms. for the other bar. It was also certified that the weight in 999.0 purity would be 500.150 gms in respect of one bar and 499.800 gms in respect of the other bar. It is stated that based upon the purity and weight so determined by the Government Mint, the State Bank of India sent certificates to the Appellant herein in terms of the Scheme under which the gold bars were deposited by him and he was informed that the weight of the gold bars deposited by him was 499.8 in respect of one bar and 500.150 in respect of the other bar in 999 purity.

b) It is stated that the Appellant herein approached the concerned District Forum by filing a consumer complaint disputing the weight given in the certificates and seeking compensation.

c) It is stated that the District Forum vide its Order dated

03.08.2017 found that the Bank of India and State Bank of India had committed deficiency in providing service and had adopted unfair trade practice in respect of gold deposited by the Appellant herein under the Scheme. The District Forum held that after completion of tenure of the Scheme, the State Bank of India should return gold bars with same purity and weight as was deposited by the Appellant herein.

d) It is stated that the said Order was challenged by the State Bank of India by filing an appeal, being Appeal No. A/17/1138, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Maharashtra, Mumbai, and the same was dismissed by the SCDRC vide Order dated 18.07.2019.

e) Thereafter, the State Bank of India filed a Revision Petition, being Revision Petition No.2196/2019, before the NCDRC. The NCDRC, vide Order dated 15.11.2019, after going through the Scheme, held that the Scheme, as floated by the State Bank of India envisages acceptance of gold in scrap form and, therefore, the State Bank of India had to send the gold deposited by the Appellant herein to the Government Mint for the purpose of melting the same and determining its purity. NCDRC further held that the Appellant herein having accepted all the terms and conditions of the Scheme and having deposited the gold with the State Bank of India, can have no grievance on account of the Bank sending the gold bars to the Government Mint for the purpose of ascertaining their weight and purity as the purity of the gold bars could not have been correctly determined without melting them. The NCDRC held that since the State Bank of India was to accept the gold only in melted form and even otherwise, it was necessary to melt the gold bars in order to verify their purity, and the loss which happened during the process of melting has to be borne by the Appellant herein and not by the State Bank of India. It held that the State Bank of India was to pay interest in