- (1.) These appeals call in question an order made by National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, New Delhi on 26/05/1999 as well as an order made by the Commission dismissing the review petition, on 16/11/1999. The order dated 26/05/1999, which is the main order reads thus: "The claim is highly inflated. We do not have any pecuniary jurisdiction. Moreover, the case of the complainants is decided by the debt Recovery Tribunal. We are not inclined to entertain this matter. Hence, this original petition is dismissed. If there is any remedy open to the complainants in law, they may do so. "
(2.) Shorn of details, we may mention that facts giving rise to the filing of this statutory appeal are that the appellant obtained orders for export of carpets and approached respondent no. 1 - bank to obtain packing facility and bill discounting facility. The appellant also opened a current bank account with the respondent - Bank as desired by the bank. After receipt of export orders for supply of carpets to M/s. Goyala, U. S. A. , the appellant handed over original bills of lading for export of carpets to the respondent - bank. Insurance premium was also received by the respondent - bank from the appellant. According to the bank, respondent no. 2 - corporation acted as an insurer of respondent - bank. The appellant alleges that due to negligence and deficiency in service on behalf of respondent - bank, the original bills of lading and export papers were not despatched and delivered to the bankers of the importers of carpets - M/s. Goyala in U. S. A. with the result that shipment was not released in their favour and the importer could not take delivery of the goods. No information was sent to the appellant by the respondent - bank about this development. It is only when the appellant made enquiries about progress of the despatch, that the respondent - bank informed the appellant that importer had not accepted the goods and advised the appellant to search for another buyer in USA, who would accept the goods of shipment. This exercise was also undertaken by the appellant at the instance of respondent - bank. Another buyer m/s. Rose Carpet House U. S. A. was approached to receive delivery of the shipment. The respondent - Bank, however, did not despatch and deliver original papers of bill of lading even to the new buyers as a result of which shipment could not be released by the new buyer also. The appellant says that because of the actions of the bank, it suffered heavy financial losses. Alleging that the loss suffered by the appellant 3 as due to negligence and deficiency in service of respondent - bank, it approached the National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, New Delhi. appears that in certain proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, an amount of Rs. 30,88,000. 00 had been decreed in favour of the respondent - bank. The appellant had filed counter-claim seeking decree in damages against the bank in those proceedings initiated by the bank. However, such counter claim was not entertainable, and hence not adjudicated upon, by the debt Recovery Tribunal. In the original application filed before the National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission, the appellant also included the sum of Rs. 30,88,000. 00, which had been decreed against it in its total claim.
(3.) On 12/10/2000, when the matter came up before us, learned counsel for the appellant realising that the inclusion of the decretal amount in the claim before the commission, which is not an appellate forum for Debt Recovery Tribunal submitted that from the original application of claim filed before the National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, the appellant would reduce the amount of Rs. 30,88,000. 00, as per the decree granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in favour of the bank and restrict its claim to the balance amount only. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before us that the appellant is bound by that statement and it shall accordingly restrict its claim before the national Consumer Disputes Redressal commission after deducting the decretal amount of Rs. 30,88,000. 00 from its claim.;