Dynamic Industries Limited,

( an ISO  9001, 2008 Company )

a public limited company registered

under the Indian Companies Act,

represented by its Director namely

Mr. Bireswar Mitra,

son of  Sri B.M. Mitra, having its office

and factory at plot no. 7, Uluberia Industrial Growth Centre,

Birshbpur, P.S. Uluberia,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711316.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         West Bengal State Electricity Distribution  Co. Limited,

having its office at 25/27, Netaji Subhas  Road,

Kolkata – 700001.

2.         The Chief Engineer, Distribution,

            West Bengal State Electricity Distribution  Co. Limited,

            Bidyut Bhavan ( 1^st floor ), Block – D, Karunamoves,

            Kolkata – 700091.

3.         The Director,  Distribution,

            West Bengal State Electricity Distribution  Co. Limited,

            Bidyut Bhavan ( 3^rd floor ),

            Kolkata – 700091.

4.         The  Chief Engineer, Customer Relations Management,

            West Bengal State Electricity Distribution  Co. Limited,

            Block A, Bidyut Bhavan ( ground floor ),

            Kolkata – 700091.

5.         The SE & Circle Manager,

            Howrah ( District ) Circle

            West Bengal State Electricity Distribution  Co. Limited,

            25/27, Netaji Subhas  Road, 3rd floor,

            Kolkata – 700001.-----------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by the  complainant  U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date )  against the o.ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(g) of the  C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for passing necessary  direction  upon the O.Ps., WBSEDCL Authority for awarding damages for unlawful disconnection of power supply at the complainant factory premises amounting to  Rs. 6,36,000/- with interest w.e.f. 01-07-2011 and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for severe harassment and other relief/s as he is entitled to.

2.               The brief facts of the case is that  the complainant Mr. Bireswar  Mitra, Director Dynamic Industries Ltd. P.S. Uluberia, District – Howrah, is a bonafide consumer having consumer no. D 13121 consuming energy at his factory premises through meter no. WBBB1095. The complainant or his legal representative had submitted a bank guarantee on the dated 24-06-2009 ( Orient Bank of Commerce )  to the o.ps. ( WBSEDCL Authority ) in the tone of of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was remain in force of two years w.e.f. 24-06-2009 to 24-06-2011 and further claim period for three months upto 24-09-2011 and also another bank guarantee ( Orient Bank of Commerce ) being no. 00030020109 for  Rs. 2,25,049/- which is valid upto 10-11-2011 and further claim period of 3 months i.e,. 12-02-2011. The o.ps. or his representative all of a sudden disconnected the power supply on the dated 01-07-2011 at about 5.00 p.m. without any prior intimation U/S 56(1) of the Act resultant a total loss are evaluated amounting to  Rs. 6,36,000/-  to the said factory due to unscheduled power block being aggrieved the complainant on behalf of the company filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayer. Hence the case. 

3.               Notice was served upon the o.ps. The o.ps. appeared and filed written version contending interalia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in facts. The o.ps. admitted the facts that the power supply was disconnected on 01-07-2011 at 5 p.m. from the HT Gear room by his authorized representative due to failure of renewal of bank guarantee / or non execution of fresh bank guarantee within the valid period i.e., within 24-06-2011 against alleged notices served vide memo no. SHE/HWA/Bulk/D13121/226/269 dated 04-04-2011/7-5-11.

4.               Moreover, this answering o.ps. further opined that any loss that  has been suffered by the petitioner due to disconnection of  power supply the same has been suffered on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner and the o.ps. were not liable in any manner for such loss and as such the question of awarding damages in favour of the petitioner does not arise at all for which the instant case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)                    Wther the complaint is maintainable before this Consumer Forum?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service as a service provider  on the part of the O.Ps?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

POINT NO. 1  :

6.      It is admitted facts that the complainant ( Director of the company ) representing

the company of a steel engineering spares manufacturer after obtaining electric connection for commercial purpose is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d) (i) as he hired the services of the o.ps. for consideration. Moreover, the complainant claimed relief and compensation under  Section 14(1)(b) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and does not matter that the connection was applied for steel manufacturers unit to be run commercially. 

POINT NOS. 2 & 3   :

7.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. As stated earlier that the complainant is a bonafide consumer entered into an agreement with submission of bank guarantee on the dated 24-06-2009 with the o.ps. for the period of two years with 24-06-2009 to 24-11-2011 and further upto 24-09-2011 having deposited a bank guarantee ( Orient Bank of Commerce ) particularly as security for the payment of all amount of the complainant’s company as consumer became due and payable to the o.ps. concerned to the extent of 3 lakhs. It is also admitted facts that the power supply of a bonafide consumer / complainant was disconnected on 01-07-11 and 5.00 p.m.

8.               The point of dispute is that the o.ps. disconnected the power supply at the complainant premises was/is arbitrary and whimsically without maintaining the basic norms of electricity act as elaborated / read with U/S 56(1) of the said Act except the letter dated 19-02-2011 of the o.ps, no other notices were received by the complainant/ consumer. This certain \blockage of power supply the complainant suffered a huge loss ( material / production amounting to Rs. 6,36,000/- ).

9.               Perused the argument of both the parties and considered all the documents filed by the o.ps. and the complainant.

10.           It is a pertinent point to mention that the o.ps. have failed to prove the proper notice U/S 56(1) of the Act was duly received ( herein letter no. SHE/HWA/Bulk/D13121/226/269 dated 04-04-2011/7-5-11) by the complainant in time prior to occurrence of the said incidence / or disconnection of power supply which as it seems clear violation of the rules and regulations of the said Act.

11.           We have also searched out some of the points which is also needed for clarification and justification for concluding and reaching a  final decision :

1)      The dispute and cause of action of the instant case arose on 01-07-2011 on the contrary the o.ps. tried to establish / authenticate its  line of action through a gazette notification no 52/WBERC dated 02-04-2013 showing therein the Regulation 4.2.2 which is nothing but again trying to frustrate the logical claim of the complainant where such attempts is no room to believe at the present instant cases.

2)      Moreover the L.O.C. ( Letter of Credit / bank guarantee ) is specially an instrument to compel the guarantor to clear the outstanding dues of the consumer. But during scrutinizing the bill for the period under cause of action starting from January,2011 to July, 2011 the conduct of the consumer/ complainant is quite satisfactory i.r.o. payment of dues / payment of electricity consumption charges without any default of making payment in successive months at the time of power supply was disconnected.  It is further to be stated that during scrutinizing the record it is well visualized that at the time of dispute there was one more existing bank guarantee of Rs. 2,25,049/- valid till 12-11-2011 with further claim period after 12-02-2012 against security deposit. Then what prompted the o.ps. to act / invoke the bank guarantee prior to disconnection.

12.  It is very disgusting to note that even if the bank guarantee expired, the claim period is very much valid. The o.ps. could invoke the bank guarantee if needed at any time within the next three months instead of disconnecting power supply at the complainant’s premises causing dislocation of the factory production adversely. It is not a healthy / proper decision to adopt harsh action and the o.ps.  ought to have made  correspondence with the complainant. The apparent action on the part of the o.ps. is not appreciated and liable to be disapproved. Hence we conclude our considered opinion that the o.ps.’ action is deficient in nature for which the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

In the result, the complaint succeeds. 

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 174  of 2013 ( HDF  174 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.ps.

      The O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,36,000/-  being the damages caused  for unlawful disconnection of the power supply at the complainant’s premises resulting the  tremendous mental agony to the complainant for which a further sum of Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation shall be paid along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

      The entire amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order failure of which a penal interest @ 9% p.a. shall be levied till realization.    

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.    

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.