Judgment

R. M. SAHAI, J

( 1 ) 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 str