CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST SOCIETY, JAIPUR versus THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF BARODA, CALCUTTA AND ANR.

CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST SOCIETY, JAIPUR versus THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF BARODA, CALCUTTA AND ANR.

The bank was not negligent in the discharge of its duties; the loss of service was due to an illegal strike by its employees, not due to a deficiency attributable to the bank. Therefore, no claim for damages was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

Parties
Appellant: Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur; Respondent No. 1: The Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 January 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deficiency in Service Under Consumer Protection Act, Banking Services During Employee Strike, Compensation for Loss of Service
Consumer Law Banking Law Deficiency in Service Under Consumer Protection Act Banking Services During Employee Strike Compensation for Loss of Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur

Appellant

The Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bank is liable to compensate for loss of service to customers caused by an illegal strike of its employees under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Ratio Decidendi

The bank was not negligent in the discharge of its duties; the loss of service was due to an illegal strike by its employees, not due to a deficiency attributable to the bank. Therefore, no claim for damages was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs