- (1.) - This petition raises a very important question which is of vital concern to the Banking Industry in this country as well as to many lakhs of consumers who have accounts and dealings with the various Banks. Stated briefly, the question that arises for our decision is 'whether a Banking Company which is forced to suspend its business operations for a period of time on account of an illegal strike resorted to by it employees, demonstrations involving obstruction of entry into and exit from its offences is liable to pay compensation to the account holders on the ground that they were put to inconvenience and loss by reason of the suspension of business of the Bank during the period of the strike. "
(2.) THE complainant before us is a well-known Voluntary Organisation the Consumer Unity and Trust Society registered under Rajasthan Society Registration Act which has its registered office at Jaipur and branches in various parts of the country including one at Calcutta. THE respondent before us is the Bank of Baroda, hereinafter referred to as the "bank". All the branches of the Bank in the State of West Bengal were unable to transact any business from 7. 09. 1987 to 30. 10. 1987 due to a strike by its "award staff employees" as a protest against transfers of bank employees who had been in one branch for 20 years or more to other branches within the city of Calcutta in accordance with the agreed scheme of job rotation/transfer. We are not concerned with the merits of the dispute between the management and the employees of the Bank but it is necessary to state that the strike was lunched by the employees of the Bank when conciliation proceedings were pending before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and hence it was clearly illegal in view of the specific provision contained in section 22 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Banking Industry having been declared to be a "public utility service" under sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the said Act. THE record before us shows that the striking employees were demonstrating in front of the entrance to the various Branch Offices of the Bank and were effectively preventing the entry of officers and willing workers into the premises of the respective Branches. Hence the situation was such that it was impossible for the Bank to carry on its banking operations from any of the Branches in the State during the period of the strike. The complainant society has put forward a claim for recovery of a sum of Rs. 110 crores "for and on behalf of the customers of the Bank to be distributed prorata on the grounds inter alia - (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 seving 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 claim, 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". Surprisingly particulars have been furnished by the complainant as to how the aforesaid figure of Rs. 110 crores was arrieved at. The Bank in its detailed reply-statement has submitted inter alia that its inability to render service to the consumers during the period of the strike from 7. 09. 1987 to 30. 10. 1987 was solely due to the fact that the illegal strike resorted to by the award staff had made it totally impossible to carry on any business activities. The striking Unions with the help of their mem* bers, supporters and sympathisers erected human barricades both at the entrances and exits of all the said 73 Branches of the Bank in West Bengal including the Zonal and Regional Offices and effectively denied ingress and egress into and out. of the premises of the various Branches by willing workmen, officers, executives, customers etc. The Bank states that it was ever ready and willing to render normal or even skeleton services with the help of officers in spite of the strike by the award staff but even this became impossible because of the forceful obstruction and even threat to cause physical harm by the striking employees. On the basis of these facts it is submitted by the Bank that the suspension of the banking operation during the aforesaid period was due to reasons wholly beyond its control and hence the Bank is under no legal liability to pay any compensation to the account holders (consumers ). It has been averred in the reply of the Bank that during the period of strike the Bank endeavoured to render service to some customers who were in dire need of financial assistance by issuing some cheques on the Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta but those attempts were thwarted by the Unions by getting those cheques defaced on the signature portion obliterating the name and seal of the issuing bank with the alleged connivance of their counterparts in the Reserve Bank with the result that those cheques were dishonoured and returned by the Reserve Bank of India. Thus, the Efforts made by the Bank to provide alternative arrangements for serving a few customers of the Bank were also effectively nullified by the striking employees. These facts have been stated by the Bank to fortify its contention that the situation was such that its failure to render service to the consumers (account holders) during the period in question was on account of factors wholly beyond its control and not due to any negligence on its part. The Indian Banks Association which is stated to be a co-ordinating agency for the Banking Industry in the country by functioning as an advisory organisation of all Banks filed an application for permission to intervene in these proceedings. Since the question raised in this case is of vital concern to the entire Banking Industry, the Association as representative of all the Banks prayed that it may be permitted to make its submissions before this Commission. That Application M. P. No. 5 of 1989 was allowed by us by order dated 27-2-1989. In an elaborate written submission filed before the Commission the Indian Banks Association, hereinafter called the "intervener", has inter alia reiterated the plea put forward by the respondent bank that the strike launched by the award employees was an illegal one and the situation resulting from the agitations and demonstrations carried on by the striking employees who obstructed entry into and exit from the premises housing the various Branches of the respondent-bank was such that it became impossible for the respondent-bank foe reasons wholly beyond. its control to render normal or even skeleton banking services to its customers. According to the intervener it was thus clearly a case of impossibility Of performance of service resulting from 'force majeure'. Another plea put forward in the written statement of the intervener is that the respondent-bank had no "absolute obligation" to render uninterrupted banking services either under any law or agreement and as such there has been no "deficiency" in the services rendered by the respondent bank within the meaning of section 2 (1) (g) of the Act. Though quite a few other contentions have also been put forward in the said written statement of the intervener, it is unnecessary for us to advert to them for the purposes of disposal of this case.
(3.) SECTION 14 (1) of. the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'act'), the provisions of which are made applicable to the proceedings before the National Commission by Rule 14 (5) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 enumerates the reliefs that can be awarded to a complainant by the Commission in the event of the allegations contained in the complaint being proved. We are concerned in this case with only clause (d) of the said sub-section which is in the following terms: "section 14 (t) (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party". Under this clause compensation can be awarded to a consumer only in respect of any loss or injury found to have been suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. It is of the essence of this provision that the loss or injury for which compensation is to be adjudged and awarded should be found to have been caused by the negligence of the opposite party. The complainant has therefore to establish that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party and that as a consequence thereof loss or injury was suffered by him. It is only in such event that award of compensation would be warranted under the provisions of this sub-clause. In the present case the aforesaid requirement of clause (d) of section 14 of the Act is hot satisfied since there is nothing on record to establish that the suspension of banking operations by the respondent bank during the strike from 7. 09. 1987 to 30. 10. 1987 was caused on account of any negligence on its part. The factual situation that has emerged from the records produced before us in the present case is that there was an illegal strike resorted to by the award employees of the respondent bank during the pendency of conciliation proceedings in contravention of section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Nature of the agitations and demonstrations carried on by them was such as to effectively prevent ingress into and egress from the premises of the Branches of the Bank in West Bengal by Officers and other willing members of the staff. Section 36 AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 lays down that the obstruction of any persons from lawfully entering or leaving any office or place of business of a banking company or from carrying on any business there and the holding of any demonstration within the office or place of business of any banking company which is violent or which prevents, or is calculated to prevent, the transaction of normal business by the banking company shall be punishable offence. When the suspension of business was caused on account of an illegal strike resorted to by the employees without any notice and the wrongful prevention by demonstrating workmen of entry by officers and willing members of the staff into any of the Branches of the Bank, it cannot be said that inconvenience, loss or injury caused to the consumers was due to the negligence of the Bank. The inability of the Bank to conduct banking operations from its Branches in West Bengal during the aforementioned period was due to reasons wholly beyond its control and hence this is clearly a case falling within the well-known exception of 'force majeure'. ;