CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST SOCIETY, JAIPUR versus THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF BARODA, CALCUTTA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 31-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 Act, 1986-Section 2(l)(g), 14(1)(d)-iJank-
ing-Illegal strike by employee~Loss of service-Claim of damage~Whether 
banking company is liable to compensate its customer~Held, No. 
c 
The respondent bank was prevented from rendering any skeleton 
service to its customers due its employees resorting to illegal strike against 
the enforcement of scheme of transfer by the bank. Since the customers of 
the bank were deprived of the services due to strike for 54 days, payment D 
of interest at lending rate, wharfage, demurrage etc. were claimed by its 
. customers. The claim was dismissed by the National Consumer Commis· 
sion 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 cus-
tomers for loss of service due to illegal strike by its employees. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
+ 
HELD : The provisions of Section 14(1) (d) of the Consumer Protec-
F 
• 
tion Act are attracted if the person from whom damages are claimed is 
found to have acted negligently and such negligence must have resulted in 
some loss to the person claiming damages. In other words, loss or injury, if 
any, must flow from negligence. Mere loss or injury without negligence is 
not contemplated by this Section. The bank had not been found to be G 
negligtmt·in discharge of its duties.'Therefore, even if any loss or damage 
-~ 
was caused to any depositor but it was not caused due to negligence of bank 
then no claim of damages under the Act was maintainable. (710-H, 711-A] 
t 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. _7166 of 
1993. 
H 
707 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
f'.rom the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.89 of the Nation~! ~on-
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. 
Haris~ N. Salve, J. Savla, for Vineet Kumar for the Respondent No.2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. SAHAI, 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 Resetve Bank of India is well founded and 
unassailable. But what was argued was. that since the custpmers of the bank 
were deprived of the· services due to strike for 54 days, the bank was liable 
to pay such amounts as, 
. 
G 
"(a) Interest on Over drafts accounts to be reimbursed at lending 
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 l~nding rate on the negotiable instruments held 
H 
in suspense during this pe~iod to be reimbursed to the cus-
""' .. 
• 
J_ 
.. 
CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST SOCY. v. BANK OF BARODA [R.M. SAHAI, J.] 709 
tome rs. 
( 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. 
( e) Reimbursement of wharfage, demurrage and such other costs 
on consignment

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.