The Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Raichur V/S Syed Moinuddin S/o. Syed Husain, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/39

Syed Moinuddin S/o. Syed Husain, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. C. Keshavarao

30 Jul 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/39

Syed Moinuddin S/o. Syed Husain, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Assistant Accounts Officer, GESCOM, Raichur The Executive Engineer (Ele) GESCOM, Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Syed Moinuddin against officers of GESCOM Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to restore the electricity supply to RR bearing No. 13902 and to award compensation amount with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he is the consumer of electricity bearing R.R. No. 13902 from opposite Nos. 1 & 2. He paid monthly bills regularly to opposites as and when demanded by them. On one day opposites disconnected power supply to RR No. 13902 without prior notice. Hence he filed consumer complaint bearing No. 8/10, thereafter opposite restored power supply to the said RR.No. 13902, while the said case was pending before this Forum, hence this Forum dismissed the complaint bearing C.C. No. 8/10 as it became in fructious. Thereafter again on 25-05-10 opposites disconnected power supply to the said RR No. 13902 withut giving notice. He is running Lathe Machine and General Engineering Works in the premises of municipal bearing No. 12-1-41(O) and 12-1-43(N). He requested the opposites to restore the power supply, but they not considered his request. Hence once again he filed this complaint against opposites for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through Advocate, filed its written version by contending that, RR No. 13902 is installed to the premises bearing Mpl.No. 12-1-41 but not to the premises of 12-1-43. CMC Raichur cancelled the licence of complainant to run the lathe machine in the premises. Hence they disconnected the power supply to the said house, there was no deficiency in their services and accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is the consumer of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 by taking power supply vide RR No. 13902 in municipal premises bearing No. 12-1-41(O) and 12-1-43 (N) situated at Gunj Road, Raichur and paid regularly monthly consumption charges to opposites, he is not due for payment of any kind of bills to the opposites but on 25-05-10 opposites illegally disconnected power supply to the installation bearing RR.No. 13902 without any prior notices and without any justifiable grounds, he requested them to restore the power supply, but opposites shown their negligence in restoring power supply and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Executive Engineer CSC GESCOM, Raichur was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. 7. The case papers of CC.No. 8/10 on the file of this Forum was summoned and included in this case as CC No. 8/10 was filed by the present complainant against these opposites for similar relief due to illegal disconnection of power supply to RR.No. 13902. 1. It is undisputed fact that, the complaint is the consumer vide RR.No. 13902 of opposites 1 & 2 as opposites themselves admitted it in their letter dt. 25-03-10 addressed directly to this Forum in CC.No. 8/10 and also they have admitted it in reconnection memo Ex.P-5 of this case dt. 19-03-10. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the complainant is not due of any kind to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 towards consumption of electrical charges vide RR.No. 13902. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, power supply was disconnected to RR.No. 13902 by these opposites and thereafter the present complainant had filed CC. No. 8/10 and opposites have restored power supply as per the order of this Forum in CC No. 8/10 vide their letter dt. 25-03-10 4. It is further undisputed fact that, the opposites once again disconnected power supply to RR No. 13902 on 25-05-10 vide disconnection memo Ex.P-4 issued by the opposites and thereby it resulted to file this complaint by the complainant. 8. In view of admissions made by the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 in Ex.P-5, reconnection memo dt. 19-03-10 and in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 dt. 25-05-10. It is crystal clear that, the complainant is the consumer and opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are service providers of electricity to RR.No. 13902. Hence there is no substance in saying that the complainant is not the consumer of RR No. 13902 as contended in written version. 9. Now let us examine the reasons arisen for opposites to disconnect the power supply once again to RR.No. 13902, in this regard Ex.P-4 disconnection memo dt. 25-05-10 gives clear picture for to disconnect the power supply to the said installation. 10. In the said memo opposites have shown two reasons for disconnection on 25-05-10, among the said two reasons, first reason shown by it is that CC No. 8/10 on the file of this Forum filed by the complainant was dismissed, we are very much surprised to this contention of the opposites. No doubt CC No. 8/10 was dismissed as noted in the final order of the judgment, but detail discussions were made in the body of the judgment for reasons of dismissal in CC No. 8/10. The said case was dismissed as per the letter undertaken by the opposites dt. 25-03-10 which was submitted to this Forum directly in which, they have clearly stated that, power supply to RR.No. 13902 was restored, as such the complaint was dismissed as it became in fructious. In view of the said circumstances, now opposites cannot make the said ground for disconnection of power supply once again by taking advantage of the final order without going through discussions in the body of the judgment. Hence this contention of opposites for to disconnect the power supply once again on 25-05-10 vide document Ex.P-4 without intimation is untenable. The second reason shown by these opposites in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 is as Civil Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff bearing OS.No. 60/05. Admittedly the present complainant who was plaintiff in OS.No. 60/05 preferred an appeal before the Honble Fast Track Court, Raichur and operation of the judgment and decree was stayed by the Honble Fast Track Court, Raichur pending appeal before it. Hence the second ground as noted in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 is also not tenable. Further opposite Nos. 1 & 2 cannot make this ground for disconnection of power supply vide Ex.P-4 on 25-05-10 because of the fact that, the said suit involve the property dispute in between present complainant with another person in respect of the said premise. Hence the second reason for disconnection is not accepted. 11, Another ground urged before us for disconnection of power supply by the learned advocate for opposites is that, the complainant took licence from the CMC Raichur to run lathe machine in the year 1983-84 vide Ex.R-1. But he is running lathe machine un-authorizedly for all these years. But all of a sudden he obtained licence on 16-06-10 for a period from 01-04-2010 to 31-03-2011 while pendency of the complaint. Thereafter CMC Raichur issued notice to the complainant on 20-07-10 to produce certain document for verification and cancellation of licence. 12. Now let us examine as to how this contention of opposites is helpful to them for disconnection of power supply to RR.No. 13902 and how they are in justification for committing such act of on 25-05-10. 13. Admittedly these opposites gave power supply to the complainant to run lathe machine vide RR No. 13902 by entering into an agreement with him and also it received consumption charges monthly regularly from that date till today, complainant is running lathe machine illegally, then what was made to them to keep silent from the year 1983 till disconnection made for the first time and why they have not mentioned it in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 dt. 25-05-10, as such this contention of opposites is also not tenable. 14. Much more was advanced regarding property number, we are not concerned with regard to dispute regarding the ownership of the said property. Opposites have acted upon on the records of the municipalities. Ex.R-6, we are of the view that, this document came on record only after Ex.P-4 which is dt. 25-05-10. Opposites unnecessarily worried about the owners of the premise and disconnected the power supply to RR No. 13902 without waiting the result of civil litigation pending between the parties. The relationship of complainant as a consumer and opposites as a service provider is well maintained till date of first disconnection, we are of the view that letter dt. 25-03-10 and another letter dt. 29-01-10 by the CMC vide Ex.P-9, letter dt. 20-07-10 Ex.R-6 and disconnection memo Ex.P-4 dt. 25-05-10 clearly establishes the fact that, these opposite officers 1 & 2 have acted arbitrarily without resorting to the laws applicable and started disconnection, thereafter they are referring documents of CMC to take the support of their arbitrary act. Hence it is a clear cut case of deficiency in their services as alleged by the complainant in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 15. As regards to the reliefs claimed by the complainant is concerned, and ruling referred by him of the Honble National Commission reported in (2010) CJ 438 (NC), LUV Properties Pvt. Ltd and another V/s. Bses Rajadhani Power Ltd., learned advocate for complainant requested us to award suitable compensation for harassment for mental agony suffered by the complainant for such repeated intentional disconnection of power supply to RR No. 13902 as he is depending upon the earnings of lathe machine. 16. The learned advocate for opposites seriously objected for it and submitted that, opposites are the officers of GESCOM, they have acted accordingly while discharging their public duties there was no negligence on their part and complainant is not entitled for any quantum of compensation as the power supply to RR.No. 13902 was restored, in view of the interim order. 17. We heard the above submissions and gone through the principles of the rulings of the Honble National Commission, we are of the view that, the facts of that case slightly differs to the facts of this case, however the principles and observations made by the Honble National Commission in the said case are aptly applicable to the facts of this case. We have also taken note of the manner in which these opposites have discharged their public duties towards its customer complainant in reference to document Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-5, we are of the view that complainant should be compensated suitably by awarding lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000/- as a compensation for his sufferings from opposite Nos. 1 & 2. 18. Further opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to restore the power supply to the complainant installation bearing RR.No. 13902 till existence of the relationship of consumer and service provider under the meaning and definition of consumer and service provider as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 19. The complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service from these opposites. He also entitled to get lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation. 20. The complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 31,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 31,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 21. We have not agreed with the submissions made by the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 as these opposites have discharged their public duties for the reasons mentioned above, we came to conclusion that these opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have acted arbitrarily without giving prior notice disconnected power supply to RR.No. 13902 of the complainant to over come the admission made in their letter dt. 25-03-10. In the said circumstances, there is no justification in saying that, GESCOM has to pay such amount under vicarious liability for the deficiency in service of these opposites, as such we are of the view that, opposite Nos. 1 & 2 shall pay the said amount from their pocket, as such we have ordered that GESCOM Ltd., (Ele) Division Raichur shall pay the above said amount to the complainant and thereafter it shall recover the said amount from the salary of opposite Nos. 1 & 2, accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3:- 22. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to restore the power supply to RR No. 13902 till existence of relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainant and themselves as defined under the meaning and definition of consumer and service provider in Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 31,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 31,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount. GESCOM Ltd., (Ele) Division, Raichur is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 31,000/- with interest to the complainant and thereafter it shall recover the total amount from the salary of opposite Nos. 1 & 2. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 is granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment for to make the payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-07-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Syed Moinuddin against officers of GESCOM Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to restore the electricity supply to RR bearing No. 13902 and to award compensation amount with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, he is the consumer of electricity bearing R.R. No. 13902 from opposite Nos. 1 & 2. He paid monthly bills regularly to opposites as and when demanded by them. On one day opposites disconnected power supply to RR No. 13902 without prior notice. Hence he filed consumer complaint bearing No. 8/10, thereafter opposite restored power supply to the said RR.No. 13902, while the said case was pending before this Forum, hence this Forum dismissed the complaint bearing C.C. No. 8/10 as it became in fructious. Thereafter again on 25-05-10 opposites disconnected power supply to the said RR No. 13902 withut giving notice. He is running Lathe Machine and General Engineering Works in the premises of municipal bearing No. 12-1-41(O) and 12-1-43(N). He requested the opposites to restore the power supply, but they not considered his request. Hence once again he filed this complaint against opposites for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through Advocate, filed its written version by contending that, RR No. 13902 is installed to the premises bearing Mpl.No. 12-1-41 but not to the premises of 12-1-43. CMC Raichur cancelled the licence of complainant to run the lathe machine in the premises. Hence they disconnected the power supply to the said house, there was no deficiency in their services and accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is the consumer of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 by taking power supply vide RR No. 13902 in municipal premises bearing No. 12-1-41(O) and 12-1-43 (N) situated at Gunj Road, Raichur and paid regularly monthly consumption charges to opposites, he is not due for payment of any kind of bills to the opposites but on 25-05-10 opposites illegally disconnected power supply to the installation bearing RR.No. 13902 without any prior notices and without any justifiable grounds, he requested them to restore the power supply, but opposites shown their negligence in restoring power supply and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Executive Engineer CSC GESCOM, Raichur was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. 7. The case papers of CC.No. 8/10 on the file of this Forum was summoned and included in this case as CC No. 8/10 was filed by the present complainant against these opposites for similar relief due to illegal disconnection of power supply to RR.No. 13902. 1. It is undisputed fact that, the complaint is the consumer vide RR.No. 13902 of opposites 1 & 2 as opposites themselves admitted it in their letter dt. 25-03-10 addressed directly to this Forum in CC.No. 8/10 and also they have admitted it in reconnection memo Ex.P-5 of this case dt. 19-03-10. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the complainant is not due of any kind to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 towards consumption of electrical charges vide RR.No. 13902. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, power supply was disconnected to RR.No. 13902 by these opposites and thereafter the present complainant had filed CC. No. 8/10 and opposites have restored power supply as per the order of this Forum in CC No. 8/10 vide their letter dt. 25-03-10 4. It is further undisputed fact that, the opposites once again disconnected power supply to RR No. 13902 on 25-05-10 vide disconnection memo Ex.P-4 issued by the opposites and thereby it resulted to file this complaint by the complainant. 8. In view of admissions made by the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 in Ex.P-5, reconnection memo dt. 19-03-10 and in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 dt. 25-05-10. It is crystal clear that, the complainant is the consumer and opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are service providers of electricity to RR.No. 13902. Hence there is no substance in saying that the complainant is not the consumer of RR No. 13902 as contended in written version. 9. Now let us examine the reasons arisen for opposites to disconnect the power supply once again to RR.No. 13902, in this regard Ex.P-4 disconnection memo dt. 25-05-10 gives clear picture for to disconnect the power supply to the said installation. 10. In the said memo opposites have shown two reasons for disconnection on 25-05-10, among the said two reasons, first reason shown by it is that CC No. 8/10 on the file of this Forum filed by the complainant was dismissed, we are very much surprised to this contention of the opposites. No doubt CC No. 8/10 was dismissed as noted in the final order of the judgment, but detail discussions were made in the body of the judgment for reasons of dismissal in CC No. 8/10. The said case was dismissed as per the letter undertaken by the opposites dt. 25-03-10 which was submitted to this Forum directly in which, they have clearly stated that, power supply to RR.No. 13902 was restored, as such the complaint was dismissed as it became in fructious. In view of the said circumstances, now opposites cannot make the said ground for disconnection of power supply once again by taking advantage of the final order without going through discussions in the body of the judgment. Hence this contention of opposites for to disconnect the power supply once again on 25-05-10 vide document Ex.P-4 without intimation is untenable. The second reason shown by these opposites in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 is as Civil Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff bearing OS.No. 60/05. Admittedly the present complainant who was plaintiff in OS.No. 60/05 preferred an appeal before the Honble Fast Track Court, Raichur and operation of the judgment and decree was stayed by the Honble Fast Track Court, Raichur pending appeal before it. Hence the second ground as noted in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 is also not tenable. Further opposite Nos. 1 & 2 cannot make this ground for disconnection of power supply vide Ex.P-4 on 25-05-10 because of the fact that, the said suit involve the property dispute in between present complainant with another person in respect of the said premise. Hence the second reason for disconnection is not accepted. 11, Another ground urged before us for disconnection of power supply by the learned advocate for opposites is that, the complainant took licence from the CMC Raichur to run lathe machine in the year 1983-84 vide Ex.R-1. But he is running lathe machine un-authorizedly for all these years. But all of a sudden he obtained licence on 16-06-10 for a period from 01-04-2010 to 31-03-2011 while pendency of the complaint. Thereafter CMC Raichur issued notice to the complainant on 20-07-10 to produce certain document for verification and cancellation of licence. 12. Now let us examine as to how this contention of opposites is helpful to them for disconnection of power supply to RR.No. 13902 and how they are in justification for committing such act of on 25-05-10. 13. Admittedly these opposites gave power supply to the complainant to run lathe machine vide RR No. 13902 by entering into an agreement with him and also it received consumption charges monthly regularly from that date till today, complainant is running lathe machine illegally, then what was made to them to keep silent from the year 1983 till disconnection made for the first time and why they have not mentioned it in disconnection memo Ex.P-4 dt. 25-05-10, as such this contention of opposites is also not tenable. 14. Much more was advanced regarding property number, we are not concerned with regard to dispute regarding the ownership of the said property. Opposites have acted upon on the records of the municipalities. Ex.R-6, we are of the view that, this document came on record only after Ex.P-4 which is dt. 25-05-10. Opposites unnecessarily worried about the owners of the premise and disconnected the power supply to RR No. 13902 without waiting the result of civil litigation pending between the parties. The relationship of complainant as a consumer and opposites as a service provider is well maintained till date of first disconnection, we are of the view that letter dt. 25-03-10 and another letter dt. 29-01-10 by the CMC vide Ex.P-9, letter dt. 20-07-10 Ex.R-6 and disconnection memo Ex.P-4 dt. 25-05-10 clearly establishes the fact that, these opposite officers 1 & 2 have acted arbitrarily without resorting to the laws applicable and started disconnection, thereafter they are referring documents of CMC to take the support of their arbitrary act. Hence it is a clear cut case of deficiency in their services as alleged by the complainant in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 15. As regards to the reliefs claimed by the complainant is concerned, and ruling referred by him of the Honble National Commission reported in (2010) CJ 438 (NC), LUV Properties Pvt. Ltd and another V/s. Bses Rajadhani Power Ltd., learned advocate for complainant requested us to award suitable compensation for harassment for mental agony suffered by the complainant for such repeated intentional disconnection of power supply to RR No. 13902 as he is depending upon the earnings of lathe machine. 16. The learned advocate for opposites seriously objected for it and submitted that, opposites are the officers of GESCOM, they have acted accordingly while discharging their public duties there was no negligence on their part and complainant is not entitled for any quantum of compensation as the power supply to RR.No. 13902 was restored, in view of the interim order. 17. We heard the above submissions and gone through the principles of the rulings of the Honble National Commission, we are of the view that, the facts of that case slightly differs to the facts of this case, however the principles and observations made by the Honble National Commission in the said case are aptly applicable to the facts of this case. We have also taken note of the manner in which these opposites have discharged their public duties towards its customer complainant in reference to document Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-5, we are of the view that complainant should be compensated suitably by awarding lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000/- as a compensation for his sufferings from opposite Nos. 1 & 2. 18. Further opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to restore the power supply to the complainant installation bearing RR.No. 13902 till existence of the relationship of consumer and service provider under the meaning and definition of consumer and service provider as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 19. The complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service from these opposites. He also entitled to get lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation. 20. The complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 31,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 31,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 21. We have not agreed with the submissions made by the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 as these opposites have discharged their public duties for the reasons mentioned above, we came to conclusion that these opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have acted arbitrarily without giving prior notice disconnected power supply to RR.No. 13902 of the complainant to over come the admission made in their letter dt. 25-03-10. In the said circumstances, there is no justification in saying that, GESCOM has to pay such amount under vicarious liability for the deficiency in service of these opposites, as such we are of the view that, opposite Nos. 1 & 2 shall pay the said amount from their pocket, as such we have ordered that GESCOM Ltd., (Ele) Division Raichur shall pay the above said amount to the complainant and thereafter it shall recover the said amount from the salary of opposite Nos. 1 & 2, accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3:- 22. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are hereby directed to restore the power supply to RR No. 13902 till existence of relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainant and themselves as defined under the meaning and definition of consumer and service provider in Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 31,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 31,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount. GESCOM Ltd., (Ele) Division, Raichur is hereby directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 31,000/- with interest to the complainant and thereafter it shall recover the total amount from the salary of opposite Nos. 1 & 2. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 is granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment for to make the payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-07-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.