JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Channappa @ C.N. Redder against the Opposite 1 to 3 GESCOM, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- with interest and cost with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he is the registered consumer having (AEH) connection under R.R. No. 23464 of the opposites in the year 1996. The said meter found defective, he informed to the opposites and requested to provide revised bills due to defects in the meter, but opposites disconnected the power supply, therefore he filed consumer complaint bearing No. 12/2000 which was decided in his favour, opposites challenged the said judgment and order in the appeal, therefore on 11-12-02 officials of opposites came and inspected the meter and made false allegations against him as he committed the theft of energy, they registered criminal case bearing No. Spl. FIR NO. 82/02 and power supply disconnected. He filed a complaint bearing No. 46/04 against the opposite for such illegal act and harassment, but it was dismissed with certain observations. The said order was challenged in appeal, it was also dismissed with certain observations, therefore he filed criminal petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga bearing No. 2643/2008 for which the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the FIR bearing KPTCL No. 82/02, therefore the alleged act of disconnection by the opposites and observations made by their lordships in the order under appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission as well as by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in criminal petition, these opposites have committed deficiency in service by disconnecting the power supply from 11-12-02 till reconnection of the power supply in the month of October-2008 and also caused harassment, mental agony etc., and thereby he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Parties Nos- 1 to 3 appeared in this case, opposite No-3 filed written version and opposite No- 1 & 2 adopted the same. The brief facts of the written version filed by them are that, there was no such intention for to disconnect the power supply to the said RR. No. (AEH) bearing No. 23469 as stated by complainant. The officers of the department inspected the installation and noticed the theft of electrical energy committed by the complainant, therefore criminal case was registered against him and disconnected the power supply. However the power supply was restored to the installation after observations of the Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No. 82/05, it admits the quashing order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in criminal petition No. 2643/08. The complainant has to pay due amount towards back bills, there was no negligence or intention on the part of opposites, as such all of them have 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 registered consumer of opposites having electricity connection (AEH) to his house bearing RR No. 23469 and it was disconnected on 11-12-02 with false allegations of theft of electrical energy with an intention to take revenge against him by the opposites in respect of consumer complaint filed by him against them and opposites have restored the power supply only in the month of October-2008, after quashing the FIR by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in criminal petition No. 2643/08 and thereby opposites intentionally made him to suffer for (8) years without power supply to his house and thereby all the 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. (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 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-11 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Executive Engineer (CSE) GESCOM, Raichur was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 are marked. 7. In the present case it is undisputed fact that, complainant is a consumer of the opposites having (AEH) electrical connection to his house bearing RR. No. 23469. It is also undisputed fact that there were previous litigations in between him with opposites with regard to supply of electricity to the said RR No. 8. It is further undisputed fact that the power supply to the RR. No. 23469 (AEH) was disconnected by these opposites as on 11-12-02 and it was restored in the month of October-2008. Further it is undisputed fact that filing consumer complaint bearing No. 46/04 by this complainant, dismissal of it by the District Consumer Forum and dismissal of the appeal by the Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No. 1872/2005 with certain observations wherein their lordships observed as liberty is reserved to the complainant to approach DF once again if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case vide Ex.P-8. Further it is undisputed fact that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka quashed FIR KPTCL bearing No. 82/02 in criminal petition No. 2643/08 vide document Ex.P-9. 9. In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order Ex.P-8 and the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in criminal petition No. 2643/08 vide Ex.P-9, this complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable. 10. As regards to proving the case of complainant with regard to negligence by these opposites, we have to appreciate the affidavit-evidences of the parties with their respective documents, in the light of the above said undisputed facts, we are nothing to do with the first round of litigation between the parties vide Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 in respect of RR. No. 23469, but we can say that that the cordial relationships of consumer and service provider in between the parties were strained due to first round of litigation. The second round of litigation is also undisputed fact as per documents Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-9. 11. Now the only point for our consideration is as to whether there was a deficiency in service on the part of these opposites for disconnection of power supply to (AEH) RR No. 23469 from 11-12-02 till October-2008. 12. The first point raised by the learned advocate for opposites is that, in pleading at Para-2 of the complaint, he mentioned RR. No. 23464 (AEH) and further allegations made by him in other Para’s are related to RR. No. 23469, as such the complaint is not maintainable, in view of such un-related facts as pleaded by the complainant. 13. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant clarified as to why the RR. No. 23469 noted in Para-2 and mentioning of RR.No. 23464 in other Para’s of complaint. In the light of the submissions made on both sides, we have perused the Para-2, Para-5 affidavit-evidences of the complainant and other related litigations before the Consumer Forum in criminal complaint No. 46/04 and appeal order Ex.P-8 shows that the present litigation is in respect of RR. No. 23469 (AEH) not in respect of RR.No. 23464, as such the little confusion arising out of the case pleaded in Para-2 and facts pleaded in other Para’s of complaint cannot be a ground for to reject the complaint. Hence the allegation made by the learned advocate for opposites is not accepted. 14. On perusal of second round of litigation in between the parties as per Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-9, we are of the view that, opposites have not able to find out a case of theft of electrical energy in respect of RR.No. 23469 and thereby a Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the criminal FIR KPTCL No. 82/02 (Crime No. 212/02). 15. There are no justifications for opposites to file such criminal case against this complainant, however opposites have disconnected the power supply from 11-12-02 and thereafter they gave service of power supply to the said RR.No. after quashing FIR i.e, till October-2008. The submissions made by the learned advocate for opposites in reference to letter dt. 22-10-03 written by complainant vide Ex.R-2 he pointed out before us that the complainant himself accepted the arrears required to be paid by him in respect of the RR. No. 23469 and the opposites are at liberty to recover the said arrears of bill, even though the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka quashed FIR. In the light of submissions made on both sides on this aspect, we have referred letter dt. 17-08-02 vide Ex.R-1, and another letter dt. 22-10-03 written by the complainant and others letters Ex.R-3 & Ex.R-4 we are of the view that those documents are not coming to the help of opposites to substantiate their allegations of committing the theft of electrical energy by this complainant, if the opposites are legally entitled to recover certain amount as arrears towards the said RR.No., then it would be different matter. We are not deciding authorities as to whether the complainant was right in saying that there was no arrears paid by him or opposites are right in contending that the complainant is still required to pay certain amount as an arrears of the energy consumption, what is required to decide by us is as to whether complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of these opposites for to disconnect the power supply of RR.No. 23469 from 11-12-02 till October-2008 by making allegations committing the theft of electrical energy, if complainant proves this fact, then he is entitled for certain relief’s as provide U/sec. 14 of C.P. Act other wise the present complaint is not maintainable and it is going to be dismissed. As we have observed from the facts and circumstances of this case in reference to the first and second round of litigations we can notice the fact that, these opposites have intentionally disconnected the power supply and made false allegations against the complainant, as he committed the theft of electrical energy in respect of RR.No. 23469 and registered a false case 212/02 and FIR No. 82/02 instead of disconnecting the power supply as he not paid arrears. Apart from it these opposites intentionally made the complainant to suffer mentally by disconnecting the power supply to RR.No. 23469 from 11-12-02 till October-2008. He spent his life in dark more than round about five years eight months without any fault of him. It appears to us from the above facts and circumstances and documentary evidences that, these opposites have unnecessarily made the complainant to enter into the second round of litigation without any fault of him, as such we are of the view that complainant proved satisfactorily the guilt of these opposites for deficiency in their services. 16. Another point that was urged by the learned advocate for opposites is that, the present complainant against opposite No- 2 & 3 are not maintainable, as both of them not employees of KPTCL GESCOM is the registered corporate body it can sue and be sued through its secretary, as such the complaint against opposite No-1 is also not maintainable, accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint against all opposites. 17. In the light of the above submissions we have referred the cause title of this complaint and noticed that opposite No-1 is the secretary of KPTCL main office Bangalore, opposite No- 2 & 3 are Executive Engineer (Ele) Raichur and Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M) Raichur of GESCOM (KPTCL). Now let us see the complaint filed by the complainant in CC.No. 12/2000 vide Ex.P-1 written version filed by the opposites in the said case vide Ex.P-2, judgment passed by this Forum in the said case vide Ex.P-3 and appeal filed by the opposite bearing No. 863/2000 before this Hon’ble State Commission. In all these said proceedings the present opposite No- 2 & 3 were the parties in the said case, they have suffered the order passed in the appeal, the present complainant filed another CC.No. 46/04 vide Ex.P-5 in which KPTCL Raichur was opposite party in the appeal bearing No. 1872/05 before the Hon’ble State Commission vide Ex.P-8, Ex.P-8, present opposites were represented KPTCL Raichur, in view of the said circumstances and in view of the changes effected in the organizations of the opposites under different names, it cannot be said that KPTCL is not a proper party, opposite No- 2 & 3 of the present case might be under deputation from other department and working in KPTCL, Raichur cannot be said that they are not the employees of KPTCL. As such the ground urged by the learned advocate for opposites cannot be accepted. To all the above said contentions raised before us by the learned advocate for opposite can be suitably answered from the ruling reported in 2009(I) SCC 47 (NC) (Supreme Court of India) Karnataka Power Corporation of India Limited and Another V/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited and Another, accordingly we inclined to reject the above said contentions of the opposites and answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 18. To ascertain the claims of complainant against these opposites, the first claim of him is for to grant compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deprivation of enjoyment of electricity for his day to day life for eight years, in view of illegal disconnection of power supply to his house. In the light of this claim of complainant we have referred the pleadings and affidavit-evidence of him. It is an admitted fact by the complainant that opposites have disconnected the power supply to his (AEH) RR.No. 23469 on 11-12-02 and power supply was restored to the said R.R.No in the month of Octber-2008, that means the opposites have made the complainant to suffer in dark from 11-12-02 till October-2008 without any fault of him, as such total period of disconnecting are five years nine months and not eight years as claimed by the complainant. The learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that opposites intentionally disconnected the power supply, they have also made false allegation of theft of electrical energy and filed criminal case only with an intention to give mental harassment, made his status and dignity lower in the eye of the society, as such he requested us to award exemplary damages. 19. In support of these submissions he referred the following rulings: 1. 986-2005 CONSUMER 9081 (NC) Chandrakant Mahadeva Kadam V/s. Assistant Engineer M.S.E.B. Adapadi and Others. 2. 2006((I) CPR 184 ( NC) Sri. V.P. Agarwal V/s. Chief Engineer (Electricity Department) U.T. Chandigarh and Another. 3. 1994 (I) SCC 243 (SC) Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta. 20. We have gone through the principles of the rulings of their lordships cited above with the facts and circumstances of this case. It is no doubt to us that, opposites intentionally not only disconnected the power supply of RR.No. 23469 (AEH) and also made false allegations of theft of electrical energy against him and registered a false criminal case and dragged him for second round of litigation and thereafter power supply restored after lapse of five years nine months in view of result of the complaint bearing No. 12/2000 filed by the present complainant in respect of RR.No. 23469. The said act is nothing but an act of them to take revenge against the complainant. Hence we sincerely expressing our view to curb mis deeds of the officers like opposite No- 2 & 3 by awarding exemplary damages. 21. Total days of disconnection are 2118 days. We have taken into consideration of the sufferings of complainant in all respects in all those days due to disconnection of power supply to RR.No. 23469, we fixed exemplary damages of Rs. 50/- per day required to be paid by these opposites, as such 2118 days x 50 = Rs. 1,05,900/-, the complainant has restricted his claim under this head to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, as such we have granted an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as exemplary cost, the complainant is entitled to recover it from opposite No- 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 22. The other claims of the complainant are for towards an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for degrading him in the society, he claimed for Rs. 1,00,000/- as a compensation for disturbing his children’s education and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment etc., As a matter of fact Consumer Forum cannot cater any kinds of such losses said to have sustained by the complainant in consumer disputes as observed by their lordships in ruling reported in 2009 CPJ 535 (CP) Purabchand Cables and Conductors (P) Ltd., V/s. Assam State Electricity Board and Others. However we have noticed the intentional negligence on the part of opposite No- 1 & 2 for which opposite No-1 is vicariously liable to answer. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we have granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant from all the above said heads, accordingly complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under all these heads from opposite No- 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 23. We also noticed deficiency in service on the part of opposite No- 1 & 2. Opposite No-1 is vicariously liable for it, as such we have granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under this head to the complainant which is also recoverable from opposite No- 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 24. Lastly the complainant prayed for to grant Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of this litigation. It is proved fact that opposite No 1 & 2 intentionally and illegally disconnected the power supply to AEH RR. No. 23469 of the complainant, made false allegations of theft of electrical energy against him and also registered the criminal case under crime No. SPL. FIR KPTCL No. 82/02 as a revenge due to first round of litigation by the complainant, in view of such act of opposites complainant was forced to enter into the second round of litigation by filing CC.No. 46/04 vide Ex.P-5 preferring appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission bearing No. 1872/05 vide Ex.P-8 and thereafter filing criminal petition bearing No. 2643/08 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga and filed this present complaint 44/09 as such we have to keep in mind all these factors in awarding cost of the litigation, complainant claimed is for Rs. 50,000/- towards cost. We have no records to grant such huge amount towards cost. However we have taken note of all the probable and possible expenditures incurred by the complainant in the above said litigations and granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of this litigations which is recoverable from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally, as such complainant is totally entitled for to recover Rs. 1,63,000/- from opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 25. With regard to the claim of interest, we have granted interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 1,63,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount which is the proper rate of interest, hence it is granted. 26. One thing is required to be explained by us in the circumstances of this case is that, opposite No- 2 & 3 are the employees of opposite No-1, we have noticed intentionally negligence committed by these opposite Nos. 2 & 3 against the complainant as he entered into the first round of litigation by filing CC.No. 12/08 against their mis-deeds, we have not noticed any lapses of opposite No-1 in this case, any how opposite No-1 has to answer for the mis-deeds committed by its employees opposite No- 2 & 3, we are not in right to cause loss to the opposite No-1 institution which a public limited company. No doubt opposite No-1 vicariously liable for to make such payment of Rs. 1,63,000/- to the complainant but it is liberty to recover the said amount from opposite No- 2 & 3 who have committed intentional deficiency in their services, with these observations we have answered Point No-2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 27. In view of our finding on Point No-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complainant is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 1,63,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. One month time is granted to the opposites for to make the payment of above said total sum to the complainant from the date of this judgment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 04-01-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.