Case: Consumer Unity and Trust Society Vs. The Chairman &amp; Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta

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.

Court's reasoning:
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 anddetermine 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 inthough 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 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 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 theof 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.