Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 28-03-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in C.C. No. 174/2013, whereof the complaint has been allowed.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that it took service connection from the OPs.  For this purpose, the Complainant furnished Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was valid till 24-06-2011 with claim period for further 3 months.  Allegedly, on 01-07-2011, Asst. Engineer of Uluberia Sub-Station unit visited the factory of the Complainant and without any prior notice or intimation disconnected the service connection.  On enquiry, Complainant came to know that such drastic step was taken as per the instruction of the Circle Office of the WBSEDCL.  Besides lodging a GD with Uluberia P.S., the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OP authority also, but to no avail.  Hence, the complaint.

The OPs, on the contrary, by submitting WV admitted that the Complainant furnished a Bank Guarantee worth Rs. 3,00,000/- in favour of the OPs as per WBSEDCL Norm.  The said bank guarantee was valid till 24-06-2011 with extended claim period up to 24-09-2011.  As per Rules of the WVSEDCL, a letter was issued to the Complainant on 19-02-2011 for renewal of the bank guarantee or issuing a fresh bank guarantee.  As the Complainant did not pay any heed to such letter, a follow up letter was sent to the Complainant on 04-04-2011.  By such letter/notice, the Complainant was cautioned of the possibility of disconnection of service line in the event of non-renewal of bank guarantee in time.  But, the Complainant chose to disregard that letter/notice also.  Hence, service connection was disconnected on 01-07-2011.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and perused the material on record carefully. 

Undisputedly, the bank guarantee in question, which was valid up to 24-06-2011, was having an additional claim period stretched till 24-09-2011.  It is also not in dispute that the service connection was disconnected on 01-07-2011. 

The moot point for consideration is whether such disconnection of service line to the factory premises of the Respondent point out any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants, as alleged by the Respondent, or not.

It appears from the impugned order that, apart from the subject bank guarantee, the Respondent discharged another bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2,25,049/- in favour of the Appellants which was valid up to 12-11-2011 with further claim period up to 12-02-2012.  The Ld. District Forum further noted that the Appellants failed to prove service of proper notice u/s 56(1) of the Electricity Act.  Lastly, the Ld. District Forum also taking due notice of the clean image of the Respondent in the matter of timely payment of energy bills allowed the complaint.

None of the aforesaid facts has been disputed by the Appellants.  That being so, it is not understood, what prompted the Appellants to resort to such drastic step against the Respondent.  Although the validity period of the bank guarantee in question expired on 24-06-2011, in case of default in making payment of energy charges, the Appellants could encash the bank guarantee till 24-09-2011 without any hindrance.  So, virtually, as on 01-07-2011, there was no reason for the Appellants to press the panic button and embarked on such coercive measures against the Respondent.

It is always desirable of a utility service provider that, taking into consideration the enormous difficulty one faces in absence of electricity, it would show utmost restraint before initiating radical steps against a bona fide consumer.  It is indeed surprising that reminder letters for renewal of security were sent to the Respondent so early (4/2½ months before expiry of the scheduled date of expiry date of bank guarantee) without appreciating the fact that public memory is very short.  It is not uncommon on the part of business houses to take steps in the nick of time.

Whatever be the case, fact of the matter remains that as on 01-07-2011, there was no valid reason for the Appellants to lose sleep over non-renewal of the bank guarantee in question.  It is not that the Respondent was a defaulter in clearing any outstanding due against consumption of electricity.  Thus, such hastiness on their part was totally uncalled for.  Since the arbitrary act of the Appellants caused substantial loss to the Respondent, the Ld. District Forum was fully justified allowing the case in favour of the Respondent. 

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.