Honble 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 Over drafts accounts to be reimbursed at lending rate during the period the account was not operative.

(b) Re-imbursement 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) Re-imbursement 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) Re-imbursement 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.

(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 over-draft 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-plause (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 loading or both housing construction entertainment, amusement or the purveying of 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 any 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 underta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document