ORDER Oral: Justice Surinder Sarup (Retd.), President: The present complaint has been filed on the pleadings that the complainant is a private Ltd, Company duly registered with the Registrar of Companies and the complaint is being filed through Shri Arvind Chaudhary who has been authorised by the Board of Directors vide resolution dated 12.8.2000, vide copy of the Extract minutes of the meeting of that date, Annexure A-1. This fact has not been specifically denied in the reply the opposite parties i.e. the H.P State Electricity Board and its Assistant Executive Engineer respectively. It has also been admitted that the complainant is a Consumer’ and has its Unit situated at village Jagatpur (Paonta Sahib) in District Sirmaour. It has also been admitted in the reply that the complainant is a consumer of electricity having connection No.ARL-4 installed in its factory premises located at Jagatpur under the supervision of opposite party No.2 i.e. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Dhaulakuan, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmor. The connected load is 1891 KVA. There is also no dispute between the parties that the supply of power to the unit of the complainant had been disconnected temporarily on the allegations at the instance of the opposite party No.2 that he had detected and found that the complainant was guilty of theft of energy and electricity during his inspection cum investigation carried out on 11.8.1995. According to the case of the opposite parties, the complaint was lodged regarding this alleged theft of electricity by the complainant Police Station, Majra/Paonta Sahib under Section 379 IPC readwith Section 39-A of the Indian Electricity Act. The further case of the opposite parties is that in accordance with the statutory instructions 206 of the Sales Manual relating to assessment and charging for energy pilferage, provisional assessment was made by opposite part/ No.2 on 12.8.1995 raising a demand of Rs. 1,61,96,604/- against the appellant who was asked to participate in the enquiry, by the notice in this behalf was ignored by it. The Superintending Engineer made a final assessment o the amount due from the complainant to the extent of Rs.1, 84, 46,604/-. 2. 1,61,96,604/- against the appellant who was asked to participate in the enquiry, by the notice in this behalf was ignored by it. The Superintending Engineer made a final assessment o the amount due from the complainant to the extent of Rs.1, 84, 46,604/-. 2. It is also not in dispute that this assessment was challenged by the complainant through a Civil Suit before the Sub Judge, Paonta Sahib, who by his order dated 7.9.1995 issued an interim direction for restoration of the power supply to the Unit of the complainant by holding that the disconnection was not proper. At the same time, the complainant was directed to (sic-pay) half of the penalty amount and other charges. The complainant feeling dis-satisfied with the conditional order passed by the Sub Judge, Paonta Sahib, filed an appeal against the said order in which the learned District Judge, Nahan while up-holding the order restoration of the power supply to the unit of the complainant, directed it to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/-. A revision petition was filed in the matter but the High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the order of the District Judge dated 12.4.1996. The H.P. State Electricity Board then went before the Supreme Court of India through S.LP, where the same was disposed of with the direction that till the suit is finally decided, the complainant should deposit a sum of Rs. 30, 30,000/- towards the demand raised and after adjusting the same, the remaining demanded amount should be clear by 31.1.1997 in six equal monthly instalments payable from 7.8.1996. Ultimately, the complainant got the suit before the Sub Judge, Paonta Sahib withdrawn in view of the offer made to get the matter resolved through the Board level Disputes Settlement Committee of the H.P. State Electricity Board (H.P.S.E.B.) and the suit was thus withdrawn on 24.3.1998. The Boara level Disputes Settlement committee of the H.P.S.E.B. by order dated 12.3.1999 determined a sum of Rs. 1,23,73,389/- minus Rs. 30,00,000/- already deposited by the complainant alongwith 18%interest from 15.10.1995, as being payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. 3. After this chronology of events, there appears to have been a second round of litigation between the parties which it is not relevant to discuss for the purpose of this complaint. 1,23,73,389/- minus Rs. 30,00,000/- already deposited by the complainant alongwith 18%interest from 15.10.1995, as being payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. 3. After this chronology of events, there appears to have been a second round of litigation between the parties which it is not relevant to discuss for the purpose of this complaint. Suffice it to say that it is also not in dispute between the parties that in the criminal case filed regarding alleged theft of energy and electricity by the complainant, as referred to above, the complainant has been acquitted by the concerned criminal Court. At the time of hearing of this complaint, it was also not disputed on behalf of the opposite parties that against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court in the said case, no further appeal was taken to the competent Court in the matter, meaning thereby that the acquittal of the complainant in the alleged case of theft of energy and power at the instance of opposite party No.2 has attained finality. 4. Coming back to the pleadings in the complaint, the same has been filed on account of deficiency in service on the ground that the power supply to the Unit of the complainant remained suspended from 11.8.1995 i.e. the date on which the non existent theft of electricity is stated to have been detected by the opposite party No.2 upto 27.9.1995 thereby realising a sum of Rs. 2, 43,570/- from the complainant by the opposite parties. Communications vide copies Annexure A.2 and A-3 in this behalf have also been enclosed with the complaint. On these pleadings, the complainant has prayed for the release of the said amount of Rs. 2, 43,570/- with interest 24% per annum from 1.9.1995 to 15.10.2000 alongwith future interest till the total amount is paid. It has further prayed for manages and costs to the tune of Rs.50, 000/- and another amount of Rs.50, 000/- as compensation on account of the harassment and financial loss caused to it. The allegations in the complaint are duly supported by the affidavit of the authorised person i.e. Shri Arvind Chaudary. Insofar as the reply of the opposite parties is concerned, the gist of the same has already been reproduced above, while stating the facts in the present case. 5. At the time of hearing of this complaint, none put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Insofar as the reply of the opposite parties is concerned, the gist of the same has already been reproduced above, while stating the facts in the present case. 5. At the time of hearing of this complaint, none put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Therefore, we proceeded to go through the record with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. 6. One half of the opposite parties, preliminary objections as set out in their reply, have been reiterated during the course of hearing by their learned Counsel. The temporary disconnection of the power supply to the Unit of the complaint has been sought to be justified on the basis of statutory instructions No. 134 as compiled in Sales Manual part-1 issued under the India electricity Act, 1910 and rules framed hereunder The admitted fact, however, in this behalf is that this temporary disconnection for the period referred to above was on the basis of alleged theft of electricity by the complainant as per the version of opposite party No.2, who is stated to have carried out a inspection cum investigation from 11.8.1995 and on the basis of the same, lodged a criminal case against the complainant. This has been specifically pleaded in para-4 (ii) of the preliminary objections in the reply of the opposite parties. At the same time in para-4 (viii) thereof, the opposite parties have themselves stated that they have now learnt that the complainant had been acquitted of the charges. Furthermore, as already stated above, the acquittal by the trial Court in the criminal case has attained finality, as per the common case of the parties. In this view of the matter, it is manifest that the very basis of temporarily disconnecting the power supply during the above mentioned period gests knocked out. It necessarily follows that application of statutory instruction No. 134 in Sales Manual Part-1 relied upon by the opposite parties, becomes irrelevant in view of the fact that the acquittal in the criminal case would legally mean that the complainant was not guilty of any that of energy or electricity as alleged. 7. It necessarily follows that application of statutory instruction No. 134 in Sales Manual Part-1 relied upon by the opposite parties, becomes irrelevant in view of the fact that the acquittal in the criminal case would legally mean that the complainant was not guilty of any that of energy or electricity as alleged. 7. To sum up from the above discussion, the acquittal in the criminal case regarding the alleged theft of energy and electricity by the complainant, knocks the bottom of the stand of the opposite parties that the power supply to its Unit was temporarily disconnected, on that account by resorting to the above referred statutory instruction contained in the Sales Manual. In other words, the opposite parties have not been able to show any justification for this action of temporarily disconnecting the power supply of the complainant, especially when it is not their case that it was in arrears of any kind regarding the supply of energy and power to its units. This would obviously amount of deficiency in service on their part within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be called the Act. 8. In fairness to the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, he has also submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation inasmuch as the cause of action arose in the year 1995 when the power supply was discontinued, while the complaint has been filed in the year 2000. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Uttar Pradesh State Commission in the case of S.Govind Rajan V. Indian Airlines, 111(1999) CPJ 552. However, on a perusal of the said report, we find that the issue of limitation never arose in that case as it does not find any mention in the same. 9. Insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, the correspondence between the parties includes a communication from the H.P. State Electricity Board, opposite party No.1, dated 21.10.1998, copy Annexure A-4 to the complaint, in which it has been intimated to the complainant that the main case amounting to Rs. 1,84,46,604/- has not been decided by the Board level Disputes Settlement Committee. 1,84,46,604/- has not been decided by the Board level Disputes Settlement Committee. In other words, the dispute between the parties was still pending as on 21.10.1998, the present complaint having been filed on 20.10.2000, i.e. exactly within two years from the date of the said communication vide Annexure A.4 to the complaint, would be deemed to be within limitation. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by time. 10. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties has also cited a plethora of case law in support of the stand of the opposite parties. They are:- (i) 1996 (V) J.T. 434 (ii) 1967 (V) J.T. 182 (iii) 1996 (II) CPJ 470 (iv) 1986-96 N.S. 2593 (v) 1997 (III) CPJ 263 (vi) 1993 (III) CPJ 1812 (vii) 1995 (I) CPJ 138 (viii) 1992 (III) CPJ 56 (ix) 1998 CCJ 1340 (x) 2000 CCJ 54 (xi) 1995 (III) CPJ 531 (xii) 1997 (II) CPJ 62 (xiii) 2000 (II) CPJ 46 (xiv) 1999 (III) CPJ 521 (XV) 1997 (III) CPJ 116 (xvi) 1996 CCJ 224, (xvii) 1999 (II) CPJ 52 (xviii) 1999 (III) CPJ 33. However, on going through the same, we find that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the findings recorded on the basis of the same here above, none of these decisions support the case of the opposite parties, who are guilty of deficiency of service by temporarily disconnecting the power supply to the Unit of the complainant on the basis of the non existent act of alleged theft of energy and electricity by the complainant. 11. Insofar as the quantum to be awarded in the present case is concerned, the prayer in the complaint is threefold, namely, refund of an amount of Rs.2, 43,570/-I with interest @ 24% per annum with effect from 1.9.1995 to 15.10.2000 alongwith future interest, the total amount, thus, having been quantified in this behalf to the f extent of Rs. 5, 43,061/-. Secondly, damages of Rs. 50,000/- and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and financial loss have also been claimed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, a case has been made out for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 2,43,570/- to the complainant. 5, 43,061/-. Secondly, damages of Rs. 50,000/- and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and financial loss have also been claimed. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, a case has been made out for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 2,43,570/- to the complainant. This shall carry interest @ 12% per annim with effect from 1.9.1995 till the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.10.2000. The amount, thus, awarded shall further carry interest @ 6 per annum form the date of filing of the complaint, referred to above, till realisation. We further hold that a consolidated sum of Rs. 15,000/- is liable to be a paid by the opposite parties towards compensation, costs etc. to the complainant in addition to the above mentioned amounts. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.