—ORDER— —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. 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. 3. 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". 4. Surprisingly particulars have been furnished by the complainant as to how the aforesaid figure of Rs. 110 crores was arrieved at. 5. (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". 4. Surprisingly particulars have been furnished by the complainant as to how the aforesaid figure of Rs. 110 crores was arrieved at. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. In M/s Dhanrajmal Gobindram vs. M/s Shamji Kalidas and Company (1) the Supreme Court has cited with approval the decision of Mc Cardie J. in Lebeaupin vs. Cripspin(2) wherein the learned Judge has explained the scope of the doctrine of force majeure. 10. In M/s Dhanrajmal Gobindram vs. M/s Shamji Kalidas and Company (1) the Supreme Court has cited with approval the decision of Mc Cardie J. in Lebeaupin vs. Cripspin(2) wherein the learned Judge has explained the scope of the doctrine of force majeure. Hidayatullah J. as he then was, speaking on behalf of the Court, observed thus: "Mc Cardie J. in Lebeaupin v. Cripspin (supra) has given an account of what is meant by force majeure with reference to its history. The expression force majeure is not a mere French version of the Latin expression vis major, It is undoubtedly a term of wider import. Difficulties have arisen in the past as to what could legitimately be included in force majeure. Judges have agreed that strikes, breakdown of machinery, which though normally not included in vis major are included in force majeure. An analysis of rulings on the subject into which it is not necessary in this case to go, shows that where reference is made to force majeure, the intention is to save the performing party from the consequences of anything over which he has no control". 11. Reference may also be made to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in India General Navigation and Railway Company Ltd. vs. Their Workmen (3) at page 18 in the following terms— "In the first place, it is a little difficult to understand how a strike in respect of a public utility service, which is clearly, illegal could at the same time be characterized as perfectly justified. These two conclusions cannot in law co-exist. The law has made a distinction between a strike which is illegal and one which is not, but it has not made any distinction between an illegal strike which may be said to be justifiable and which is not justifiable. This distinction is not warranted by the Act, and is wholly misconceived, specially in the case of employees in a public utility service". 12. This distinction is not warranted by the Act, and is wholly misconceived, specially in the case of employees in a public utility service". 12. In the light of the aforesaid rulings of our Apex Court, we have no hesitation to hold that on the facts of the present case where the suspension of banking operations was the direct consequence of an illegal strike involving unlawful obstruction by the striking workmen of ingress into and egress from the Banks offices by the officers and willing members of staff, it cannot be said that the inconvenience, loss or injury which was undoubtedly caused to the large number of constituents of the bank was a result of negligence on the part of the respondent bank. The claim made by the complainant for award of compensation cannot therefore be sustained. 13. We should not however be understood as laying down any principle of general application that in no case of strike by employees can a Bank be made liable for paymant of compensation. In any given case if it is shown that the strike was not illegal and it had been occasioned by any negligence on the part of the Bank, in the performance of its administrative functions of good governance and maintenance of proper employer-employee relations different considerations may possibly apply. We are not called upon to express any opinion on this point in this case. 14. We are constrained to observe that it is a matter for regret that in the lengthy written submission made on behalf of the Indian Banks Association one searches in vain for any indication of a proper appreciation of the great inconvenience that is bound to have been caused to the large number of consti-tuents of the Bank effected by a strike. Instead what we find is a plea couched in highly technical and legalistic language that the "respondent Bank has no absolute obligation to render uninterrupted banking service either under any law or agreement." 15. The Banking Industry is the life breath of our nations economy not merely in respect of the industrial and agrarian sectors but also the urban as well as rural, commercial and domestic sectors. The sudden cessation of its operations by a Bank for howsoever short a period is bound to produce serious adverse repercussions to its constituents belonging to all the aforesaid categories entailing very great hardship and loss. The sudden cessation of its operations by a Bank for howsoever short a period is bound to produce serious adverse repercussions to its constituents belonging to all the aforesaid categories entailing very great hardship and loss. Since strikes in public utility services have unfortunately become a very common and frequent phenomenon in our country there is urgent and imperative need to evolve a workable scheme which would enable uninterrupted service being rendered to the constituents of evers bank through out the year during normal business hours on all working day not with standing a strike by the employees of the Banks. Barring a few Banking Companies which are in the private sector the rest of the Banking Industry in the country is operated by nationalised banks. It is clearly the duty of the Government of India to ensure that the constituents of these Banks are provided uninterrupted service and that they are not put to inconvenience, hardship and loss by reason of any stoppage of work by the employees of any of the nationalised banks. 16. In view of the express provision contained in section 36 AD of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 declaring that it shall be a punishable offence to obstruct any person from lawfully entering or leaving any office of place of business of banking company or from carrying on any business there, or to hold within the office of place of business of any banking company, any demonstration which is violent or which prevents, or is calculated to prevent the transaction of normal business by the banking company, a mandatory duty is cast on the law enforcement authorities of the concerned State to take effective steps to prevent such obstruction of free entry into the place of business of a banking company as well as any demonstration which is calculated to prevent the transaction of normal business by the banking company. We expect that the Government of India and the State Governments will immediately bestow their anxious attention on this vital aspect for safeguarding the interests of the consumers namely, the large number of depositors and account holders in the banks in the country during the period of a strike. We expect that the Government of India and the State Governments will immediately bestow their anxious attention on this vital aspect for safeguarding the interests of the consumers namely, the large number of depositors and account holders in the banks in the country during the period of a strike. Any service in connection with or in relation to bank is included as an "essential service" under section 2 (xxi) of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 and under section 3 of the said Act, the Government has the power to prohibit a strike by issuing a notification. When a banking company is affected by a strike and the demonstration carried on by the employees is such as would constitute an offence under section 36 AD of the Banking Regulation Act, it is mandatory that the concerned State Government should afford adequate police protection to the Bank so as to enable banking operations to be carried on in every branch of the bank by facilitating the free entry into and egress from the premises of the bank by the consumers and by employees who are willing to work. Since strikes in public utility services have become quite frequent the consumers of the Banking Industry are entitled to expect that the Government and the Reserve Bank of India will take due note of the existing realities and make effective and adequate alternative arrangements for rendering at least a limited amount of service to the customers of any nationalised bank which is affected by a strike so that the hardship and loss suffered by the consumers may to that extent be minimised. Similar action has to be taken by the Reserve Bank of India for safeguarding the interests of account holders in the Banks which are in the private sector. In this modern age of computerisation, there should not be any insurmountable difficulty to evolve a workable solution and what is needed is only the requisite will, initiative and enterprise and a determination to maintain at least a skeleton service so that the consumers having accounts in the banks and more particularly small account holders and depositors like pensioners etc. will not be made to suffer avoidable hardship- 17. will not be made to suffer avoidable hardship- 17. On behalf of the Indian Banks Association it was submitted before us that it may be made mandatory on the part of every bank to extensively publish in the newspapers the fact of any impending strike in case a notice has been served on a bank by its employees or their Union that they would resort to a strike from some future date. We consider that this is a good suggestion and would direct that, in future, whenever a strike notice is served by any section of employees or their Union on the management of a bank and a strike appears to be imminent, the concerned bank should insert a publication in the leading local newspaper informing the customers about the possibility of their being a strike in the Bank so that the customers, especially small account holders, pensioners etc. may not be taken by surprise by the strike but may instead, be enabled to withdraw sufficient amounts to meet their requirements during the period of the threatened strike. Such a course if adopted will help greatly to mitigate the hardship that will otherwise be caused to depositors and account holders. 18. The Commissions feels unhappy to observe that the striking workers, have been totally indifferent to the interests of the consumers the depositors, account holders and the borrowers, whom the bank including its workmen are expected to serve. Not only was the strike against the Bank management illegal, the strikers also unlawfully denied ingress into and egress out of the Bank premises to willing workers, officers and customers in its various branches in West Bengal, besides holding demonstration at the residence of the Assistant General Manager of the Bank at Calcutta. 19. The striking workmen also prevented the management from providing skeleton services to its customers by unlawfully thwarting its efforts to operate "selectively" through the Reserve Bank of India and the Grindlays Bank. The cheques issued by the opposite party on the Reserve Bank of India were found to be defaced and were in consequence dishonoured. Cheques are valuable financial instruments and their illegal defacement was a criminal act, against the interests of the customers. We are constrained to observe that regrettably, no inquiry appears to have been made to investigate how these cheques were defaced and by whom. Cheques are valuable financial instruments and their illegal defacement was a criminal act, against the interests of the customers. We are constrained to observe that regrettably, no inquiry appears to have been made to investigate how these cheques were defaced and by whom. It also appears that the Grindlays Bank was prevented from rendering help to the clients of the opposite party for fear of adverse sympathetic reaction among its own employees. 20. The Commission feels that all these were clearly anti-consumer acts. Unless there is a better appreciation of the obligation of the workmen/employees to the banks clients and a realisation that "innocent clients" should not be made to suffer, and that in public sector banks, such strikes hardly affect the bank management, the Consumer Protection Act will remain largely ineffective for the consumers in this sector. Indeed, what the workers need to realise is that by such unthinking acts, they only harm the long-term interests of the working class in general, owing to the adverse impact of such illegal and unwarranted strikes on trade and industry. Such strikes also turn public opinion against the striking employees because of the immense inconvenience caused to the public desirous of using banks facilities. We would also like to stress that it is the obligation of the law and order authorities to enforce the provisions of section 36 B of the Banking Regulation Act, which is precisely intended to ensure that the banks clients and willing employees are not obstructed from lawfully entering or leaving the place of business of the bank during its working hours. 21. We do hope and trust that in the light of the observations contained in this order the Department of Banking, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India would urgently give their best attention to the matter of evolving some workable arrangement for rendering at least skeleton service to the account holders of a bank affected by a strike so that the hardship and loss to them may to that extent be avoided or lessened. We expect that some concrete action in this direction will be taken by the Reserve Bank of India in conjunction with the Department of Banking, Ministry of Finance within a period of six months From today. 22. Subject to the above observations and directions, this complaint will stand dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. We expect that some concrete action in this direction will be taken by the Reserve Bank of India in conjunction with the Department of Banking, Ministry of Finance within a period of six months From today. 22. Subject to the above observations and directions, this complaint will stand dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. 23. Copies of this order will be forwarded by the Registrar to the Secretary, Department of Banking, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and to the Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay for their information and necessary follow-up action. 24. Order pronounced on 18.5.89