TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bank not liable for customer losses during strike under Consumer Protection Act</h1> <h3>CONSUMER UNITY & TRUST SOCIETY JAIPUR Versus CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR BANK OF BARODA CALCUTTA</h3> CONSUMER UNITY & TRUST SOCIETY JAIPUR Versus CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR BANK OF BARODA CALCUTTA - 1995 (1) SCR 707, 1995 (2) SCC 150, 1995 (2) JT 51, ... Issues:1. Liability of a banking company for compensating customers for loss of service due to illegal strike by employees.Analysis:The judgment in question deals with the issue of whether a banking company is liable to compensate its customers for the loss of service caused by an illegal strike by its employees. The court considered the definition of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the concept of deficiency in service. The appellant, a registered voluntary consumer association, sought various forms of compensation for the loss suffered by customers during a 54-day strike, including interest on overdraft accounts, reimbursement of interest, and other related costs. However, the court noted that the deficiency in service must arise due to a fault, imperfection, or inadequacy in the quality or manner of performance required by law. In this case, the court found that the failure of the bank to render service was not due to any deficiency on its part but was a result of the illegal strike by employees, who physically prevented the bank from functioning.The court also examined the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which allows for compensation to consumers for loss or injury suffered due to the negligence of the opposite party. The court emphasized that negligence must result in some loss or injury to the consumer, and mere loss or injury without negligence is not actionable under the Act. In this case, the bank was not found to be negligent in discharging its duties, and therefore, the court held that no claim for damages under the Act was maintainable. The court highlighted that for damages to be claimed under Section 14(1)(d), the negligence of the party causing the loss must be established, and the loss or injury must flow from such negligence.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the bank was not liable to compensate customers for the loss of service due to the illegal strike by its employees. The court also ruled that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
