Consumer compensation for banking disruption depends on deficiency or negligence, not merely a strike by employees.

Banking services fall within the broad meaning of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but compensation requires a statutorily cognisable deficiency or negligence by the service-provider. Where customers were unable to use banking facilities because employees went on an illegal strike and physically prevented the bank from functioning, the disruption was not treated as a deficiency in the bank's own performance. Section 14(1)(d) was also noted to permit compensation only when loss or injury is caused by negligence, so damages are not maintainable in the absence of proved negligence by the bank.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a banking company was liable to compensate customers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for loss of banking services caused by an illegal strike by its employees. (ii) Whether compensation under Section 14(1)(d) could be awarded in the absence of negligence by the bank.

Issue (i): Whether a banking company was liable to compensate customers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for loss of banking services caused by an illegal strike by its employees.

Analysis: The expression "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is wide enough to include banking facilities, and the claimed heads of loss could broadly fall within the ambit of services connected with banking. However, "deficiency" under Section 2(1)(g) requires a fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in performance attributable to the service-provider. Where the customers were unable to avail of banking services because the employees resorted to strike and physically prevented the bank from functioning, the failure was not due to any shortcoming in the bank's own performance of its legal or contractual duties.

Conclusion: The bank was not liable to compensate customers for losses merely because services were disrupted by the strike.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation under Section 14(1)(d) could be awarded in the absence of negligence by the bank.

Analysis: Section 14(1)(d) authorises compensation only for loss or injury suffered due to the negligence of the opposite party. Negligence must be the proximate cause of the loss or injury claimed. If the bank was not negligent in discharging its duties, any loss suffered by depositors, even if real, would not satisfy the statutory requirement for an award of damages under that provision.

Conclusion: Compensation under Section 14(1)(d) was not maintainable because no negligence by the bank was established.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the dismissal of the consumer claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requires a statutorily cognisable deficiency or negligence by the service-provider, and loss caused by an external strike without negligence of the service-provider does not attract compensation.

---