PETITIONER: CONSUMER UNITY & TRUST SOCIETY Vs. RESPONDENT: CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR DATE OF JUDGMENT31/01/1995 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) MOHAN, S. (J) CITATION: 1995 SCC (2) 150 JT 1995 (2) 51 1995 SCALE (1)387 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
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
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.
2.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 been assailed in this appeal.
Even the finding that the Bank was prevented from rendering
any skeleton service to its customers due to unruly
behaviour 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 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 overdrafts accounts to be
reimbursed at lending rate during the period
the account was not operative.
(b) Reimbursement 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 in suspense during
this period to be reimbursed to the customers.
(d) Reimbursement 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 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.
152
(f) Such consequential damages and losses
incurred by the customers resultant of the
strike, including compensation for mental and
physical anguish and agony caused due to non-
availability of the money or against a
limit/loan or overdraft facility with the
Bank.
(g) Such other losses and claims, which may
arise out of the 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 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:
” service’ means service of any description
which is made available to potential users and
includes the provision of facilities in
connection with banking, financing, insurance,
transport, processing, supply of electrical or
other energy, board or lodging or both,
housing construction, entertainment, amusement
or the purveying a 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, 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:
” ‘deficiency’ means an),, fault,
imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy 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 the deficiency did not arise due to one of the
reasons mentioned in clause (g). The shortcoming in he
service by the Bank did not arise due to failure on the part
of the 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 pan of the Bank but due to strike
resorted to by the employees who almost physically 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 framed under the Act. Clause (d) of sub-section
(1) of Section 14 is extracted below:
153
“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 must cause some loss or injury to him. Loss is
a generic term. It signifies some detriment or 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 and such negligence must result 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 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 due
to negligence of Bank then no claim of damages under the Act
was maintainable.
3.For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
But there shall be no order as to costs.
155