CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST S.OCIETY, JAIPUR A  ( v.  

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,  BANK OF BARODA, CALCUTTA AND ANR.  

JANUARY 31, 1995 B  [KULDIP SINGH, R.M. SAHA! AND S. MOHAN, JJ.)  

.. Consumer Protection Ac~ 1986-Section 2(1)(g), 14(J)(d}-!Jank- ing-{llegal strike by employees-Loss of servic~laim of damage~Whether  banking company is liable to compensate its customers-Held, No. c  

The respondent bank was prevented from rendering any skeleton  service to Its cnstomers doe its employees resorting to illegal strike 11galnst  the enforcement of scheme of transfer by the bank. Since the cnstomers of  the bank were deprived of the services due to strike for 54 days, payment  

D of interest at lending rate, wharfage, demnrrage etc. were claimed by Its  ~ customers. The claim was dismissed by the National Consumer Commis·  

slon as not maintainable. Hence this appeal.  

The question raised for determination was whether a banking com·  pany which renders service within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 E  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is liable to compensate Its cos·  tomers for loss of service due to illegal strike b.v its employees.  

Dismissing the appeal, this Court  

HELD: The provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protec- F  lion Act are attracted if the person from whom dama11es are claimed Is  found to have acted negligently and such negll11ence must have resulted In  some loss to the person claiming damages. In other words, loss or Injury, If  any, most now from negligence. Mere loss or Injury without negligence is  not contemplated by this Section. The bank had not been found to be  

G negligent· In discharge of Its dnties.·Tberefore, even If any loss or damage  was caused to any depositor but It was not cansed doe to negligence of hank  then no claim of damages under the Act was maintainable. [710-H, 711·A)  

CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No . .7166 of  1993. H  

707

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.89 of the Nation~! Con-

B  

c  

sumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in O.P. No. 2 of 1988.  

L.K. Pandey, Naresh Sahai Mathur and Raghupathy V.N. for the  Appellant.  

•  Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, for Vineet Kumar Adv. for the  

Respondent No. 1.  

Harish N. Salve, J. Savla, for Vineet Kumar for the Respondent No.2.  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

R.M. SARAI, J. The short question that arises for consideration in  this appeal directed against judgment of National Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission, New Delhi, is whether a banking company which  renders service within meaning of clause (g) of Section 2 of the Consumer  

•  

D Protection Act, 1986 (referred in brief as 'the Act') is liable to compensate  its customers for loss of service due. to illegal strike by its employees. ~  

Reasons for the strike due to enforcement of scheme of transfer by  the Bank and its being illegal due to employees resorting to it during  pendency of conciliation proceedings before the Commission have not  

E been assailed in this appeal. Even the finding that the bank was prevented  from rendering any skeleton service to its customers due to unruly be- haviour of the employees who not only created barricades by forming  human wall before the bank but even mutilated and defaced the signature  on cheques issued by the bank to cater to urgent demands of its customers  

F by colluding with employees.of Reserve Bank of India is well founded and  unassailable. But what was argued was that since the customers of the bank  were deprived of the· services due to strike for 54 days, the bank was liable  to pay such amounts as,  

"(a) Interest on Over drafts accounts to be reimbursed at lending  G rate during the period the account was not operative.  

(b) Re-imbursement of interest at the lending rate less actual rate  of interest creditable to the saving deposit account holders. •  

( c) Interest at the lending rate on. the negotiable instruments held  H in suspense during this period to be reimbursed to the cus-

<  

II  •  

CONSUMER UNITY ANDTRUSfSOCY.v. BANKOFBARODAIR.M.SAHAl,J.) 709  

tomers. A  

(d) Re-imbursement of interest at which the customers may have  borrowed money from elsewhere to meet with their exigencies  for the period during which they could not lay hands on their  own money lying stuck in or due to the Bank.  

B  (e) Reimbursement of wharfage, demurrage and such other costs  

on consignments, documents of which were lying in the Bank  or could not be delivered to the Bank during this period and  the related period before and after this strike.  

(I) Such consequential damages and losses incurred by the cus- c  tomers resultant of the strike, inC!uding compensation for  mental and physical angnish and agony caused due to non- availability of the money or against a limit/loan or over-draft  facility with the_Bank . .---

(g) Such other losses and claims, which may arise out of the D  

actual claims to be lodged by the customers and/or assessed ·  for the strike period after making 'thorough assessment  through an independent agency".  

To determine merits of this submission, it is necessary to advert to certain E  provisions of the Act. A consumer or any registered voluntary consumer  association, like the appellant, is entitled to file a complaint, as provided  in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of the Act for deficiency  in service. 'Service' has been defined in clause (o) of Section 2 of the Act  and reads as under :  

F  ""service" means service of any description which is made available  to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in con- nection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing,  _supply of electrical or other energy, bo.ard or loading or both  housing construction entertainment; amusement or the purveying G  

--of news or other information, but does not include the rendering  of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal  service".  

The expression, 'any description' widens the ambit of the Section and  extends it to any service. Therefore, payment of interest on overdrafts, H

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A interest at lending rate, wharfage, demurrage etc. claimed by the appellant  may be covered in the expression 'service'. But 'deficiency' in service has  been defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act as under :  

B  

""deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inade- quacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is  required to be maintained.by or under any law for the time being  in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in  pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service".  

Even though the depositors were deprived of the service of the bank but  C the deficiency did not arise due to one of the reasons mentioned in clause  

(g). The shortcoming in the service by bank did not arise due to failure on  the part of bank in performing its duty or discharging its obligations as  required by law: Since the depositors were prevented to avail of the  services of the bank not because of any deficiency on the part of the bank  but due to strike resorted to by the employees who almost physically  

D prevented the bank from functioning, the failure of the bank to render  service could not be held to give rise to claim for recovery of any amount  under the Act. Further, the power and jurisdiction· of the Commission is  to award compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act as it has been  made applicable to the Commission by sub-rule (b) of Rule 19 of the Rules  

E framed under the Act. Clause ( d) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 is  extracted below :  

F  

"to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to  the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due  to the negligence of the opposite party''.  

Each of these expressions used in the sub-section are of wide connotation  and are fully comprehended both in common and legal sense. Negligence  is absence of reasonable or prudent care which a reasonable person is  expected to observe in a given set of circumstances. But the negligence for  which a consumer can claim to be compensated under this sub-section  

G must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss· is a generic term. It signifies  some detriment -0r deprivation or damage. Injury too means any damages  or-wrong. It means, 'invasion of any legally protected interest of another'.  Thus the provisions of Section 14(1)( d) are attracted if the person from  whom damages are claimed is found to have acted negligently ~ 1uch  

H negligence must result in some loss to the person claiming damages. In  

•

-~  

CONSUMER UNITY ANDTRUSfSQCY.v. BANKOFBARODAIRM.SAHAl,J.J 711  

other wo!fts, loss or injury, if any, must flow from negligence. Mere loss or A  injury without negligence is not contemplated by this Section. The bank has  not been found to be negligent in discharge of its duties. Therefore, even  if any loss or damage was caused to any depositor but it was not caused  d11e to negligence of bank then no claim of damages under the Act was  maintainable.  

For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall  be no order as to costs.  

A.G. Appeals dismissed.  

B