JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By means of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 30.05.2009, rendered by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Haridwar is under challenge, whereby the Suit was decreed granting the compensation to the plaintiff/respondent no.1 to the tune of Rs.71,71,989/- along with 6 percent simple annual interest since 1997 till the date of institution of Suit in the Court; thereafter, to pay six per cent compound annual interest up to the date when the amount is actually paid nay exemplary damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. Having heard the rival contentions and more particularly, after reading the set of facts, this Court find as to how an innocent person is oppressed at the hands of government officials and in the present matter, at the hands of the engineers, in all hierarchy of the Hydel Department of the Government. A flourishing industry, which could have been augmented by the co-operation and assistance of these Hydel Engineers, was forced to be closed so much so it was auctioned by the financer (Uttar Pradesh Finance Corporation, U.P.F.C.) and the plaintiff Mr. Janam Singh was made to run from pillar to post craving for the restoration of work in his factory but all went in vain and he was made to suffer in myriad ways, inasmuch as, leading to his starvation along with his growing family. All these state of affairs could not invoke even a little mercy at the end of either of the government officials. Another aspect of the whole episode can also be viewed from yet another angle that at one place, the government, by itself, checks out sundry plannings to facilitate the development of the industries and formulate rules in this regard so that the society, as a whole, then province and ultimately, the nation, could be paved on the path of progress, but sincere implementation of all these policies ultimately remains at the hands of the officials/officers of various departments where an aspirant is forced to suffer several obstacles in the way and the matter, in hand, is akin to what has been set forth above. The facts, sans unnecessary details, are that Sri Janam Singh, the plaintiff, while he was in the prime of his life, planned to set up a factory in the industrial area of Bahadarabad locality, District Haridwar. The facts, sans unnecessary details, are that Sri Janam Singh, the plaintiff, while he was in the prime of his life, planned to set up a factory in the industrial area of Bahadarabad locality, District Haridwar. So, he, after procuring finances from the UPFC, started a factory to manufacture paper cones under the name and style of ‘Nishi Con Enterprises’ in the year 1989. An electricity connection of 25 Horse Power was installed by the appellants, herein, for such factory in the same year after deposit of Rs.2,500/- on 3.8.1989. The electricity supply commenced on 21.8.1989 and the factory began to produce the goods on 1.1.1990. The factory continued to produce for a little more than five years but the miseries came in the life of Mr. Janam Singh when the fire broke out in his industrial unit which ablazed several things, including the electricity wires, and the connections also reduced into ashes. Somehow, the plaintiff by dint of his diligence had the courage to re-assemble all the things; he appealed for the cooperation and assistance of the Electricity Department, as a result whereof, the Executive Engineer made one-time settlement of the electricity dues to the tune of Rs.38,764/- pursuant to the standing orders of the Electricity Board issued some time in the year 1993. Out of such amount, Mr. Janam Singh had to pay 50 percent by 17.5.1996 and then rest of the 50 percent had to be paid in two equal monthly installments. Instead of depositing 50 percent, Mr. Janam Singh deposited Rs.27,082/- on 21st May, 1996 which was 75 percent of the total amount determined under one-time settlement. This fact has also been admitted in the counter affidavit of the Executive Engineer Mr. Omvir Singh filed in June, 1999, although before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter to be refereed as the ‘National Commission’). The deposit of Rs.2,000/- for restoring the electricity connection is also admitted and thus, such connection was restored on 22.5.1996 leaving the remaining amount of Rs.11,681/- to be deposited by Mr. Janam Singh within next two months. Now, the facts will reveal as to how he (plaintiff) lost his every thing, besides being brimmed over with severe mental and bodily pain, due to atrocious and irresponsible conduct of hydel engineers. Janam Singh within next two months. Now, the facts will reveal as to how he (plaintiff) lost his every thing, besides being brimmed over with severe mental and bodily pain, due to atrocious and irresponsible conduct of hydel engineers. His electricity connection was temporarily disconnected on 26.5.1996 i.e. just after 4 days of re-connection, asking him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,89,622/-, which were alleged to be due on him. He rushed from pillar to post to get the things clarified, as happened one-time settlement on the amount of Rs.38,764/-. It is also pertinent to mention that such one-time settlement has also been admitted in the affidavit of Executive Engineer Mr. Omvir Singh on dated 22.6.1999. However, no one paid any heed to repeated prayers and ultimately, the electricity connection was permanently disconnected on 13.2.1997, as is evident from paper No.54C-1/3 available in the lower court record and this paper has been prepared under the signature of Junior Engineer concerned under the title of ‘Permanent Disconnection Report’. Appellants sent a recovery notice of Rs.1,62,745/- adjusting the amount of Rs.27,082/-, which was deposited by Mr. Janam Singh on 21.5.1996, and pursuant to such recovery citation, the revenue officials sealed his factory on 8.3.1997. Thereafter, factory was attached on 2.8.1997 as is revealed from the Paper No.61C-1/3 under the signature of Naib Tehsildar/Auction Officer, Haridwar; inventory was prepared on 21.8.1998 under the signature of Naib Tehsildar. This all is evident from paper No.61C-1/3 in the lower court record. Thereafter, the auction notice was published. The plaintiff ran from one officer to other beseeching the mercy on him and his family but everybody turned deaf ears to him and ultimately, UPFC auctioned his factory in the year 2001. This way, he and his family had completely been left for starvation. In the above backdrop, after sending the notice dated 10.3.1997 through his counsel to the appellant, he filed a complaint to the National Commission in May, 1997, wherein the counter affidavit was filed by Mr. Omvir Singh, the Executive Engineer in June, 1999 i.e. after two years of such complaint. Unfortunately, that complaint was dismissed by the Commission on 9.8.2000 with the findings that the question should be agitated before the Civil Court. However, all the questions were left open by the Commission with the observation that the complainant may pray for condonation of delay before the appropriate forum. Unfortunately, that complaint was dismissed by the Commission on 9.8.2000 with the findings that the question should be agitated before the Civil Court. However, all the questions were left open by the Commission with the observation that the complainant may pray for condonation of delay before the appropriate forum. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against such judgment of the Commission but here too, Hon’ble Court upheld the findings of the Commission with the reprieve that the appellant would be entitled to the exclusion of period from the date of filing of the original petition before the National Commission in the year 1997 till this day, as he was bona fidely prosecuting the case before the National Commission as well as this Court. Since, Mr. Janam Singh had completely been ruined and his economic status had been reduced to an indigent, hence he filed the Original Suit No.74 of 2006 in forma pauperis. The repeated reports were called by the court concerned in order to clarify the status and ultimately, the Tehsildar, Haridwar on the various reports of Lekhpals and Revenue Officials, submitted his report to the DGC (Civil) verifying his status, as pauper, having no movable and immovable properties. So, he was permitted to proceed with the suit and then defendants/ appellants, herein, were asked to file their written statement by the Civil Court which could be filed on 28.2.2007. In such suit, the plaintiff claimed the damages/compensation from the defendants/appellants on many scores and a consolidated amount for all such claims has been decreed by the Court below, as indicated above. I have heard learned Counsel of either party and feel that most of the issues have unnecessarily been formulated viz. plea of the defendant regarding barring of the time limitation has no relevance because Hon’ble Apex Court had already granted the exemption in this regard; breaking out of the fire in the industry took place on 8.5.1995 while the dispute between Mr. Janam Singh and the Electricity Department commenced after 14 months of such fire w.e.f. 26.5.1996 when his restored electricity connection was again disconnected on 26.5.1996 under the garb of demanding arrears to the tune of Rs.1,89,622/-. This all has been admitted even in the written statement filed in the original suit at the end of the defendants. Janam Singh and the Electricity Department commenced after 14 months of such fire w.e.f. 26.5.1996 when his restored electricity connection was again disconnected on 26.5.1996 under the garb of demanding arrears to the tune of Rs.1,89,622/-. This all has been admitted even in the written statement filed in the original suit at the end of the defendants. I am of the opinion that when the one-time settlement had already taken place pursuant to the directions of the Electricity Board issued under the Order No.2276/CU-2-29.7.1993, then there was no relevancy at all to demand this much of amount by the appellants from Mr. Janam Singh. The attitude of the Engineers, based at Haridwar, looking after the industrial area, was appalling indeed for the reasons best known to them; more so when in pursuance of the one-time settlement, Mr. Janam Singh had already made deposit of 75 percent of the amount due on him against the required deposit of 50 percent worth Rs.38,764/-. The respondent/ plaintiff kept on running from May, 1996 and even thereafter, till his factory was finally sealed in pursuance of the recovery citation sent by the Electricity Department and ultimately, the time when his factory was auctioned but none was propensus to pay any heed to dispel his burning agony and woes. The contention of the appellants that by demanding the compensation, Mr. Janam Singh was motivated to make good the losses on account of fire broke out in his factory, does not have any substance for the reason that the fire broke out on 8.3.1995 and he started to reproduce the goods after the electricity connection was restored. It was next argued for the appellants that the elaborate brake up of has not been highlighted for asking the compensation on different scores inasmuch as, Mr. Janam Singh has asked the damages at Sl. Nos.6 and 8 viz. two-times for the same loss. This contention does not hold any water for the reason that if the amount of compensation, so claimed on various scores, is seen meticulously, then the learned counsel of the appellants would have noted that business loss of Rs.1.60 lakh has been claimed w.e.f. 29.6.1998 to the year 2000 and such business loss to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakh has been claimed since August, 2000 to August, 2005. I also do concur with the view adverted by the Court below that since the life of plaintiff and his family have ruined besides undergoing unmatchable pain and anguish, so the grant of Rs.10.00 lakh on this score is not excessive one. That apart, nothing has been cross-examined by the appellant regarding these points when Mr. Janam Singh appeared in the witness box before the Court below. So, now before the Appellate Court, it is futile to raise such contentions. I feel that this is the whole crux of the controversy which I have discussed hereinabove and nothing beyond that has been put forth in the submissions on behalf of the appellants. Before parting, it would not be out of place to mention herein the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta’ 1994 (1) SCC Page 243, wherein it was held that:- “When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers’ money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that the complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.” So, I leave it open on the decision of the officers in the hierarchy of the government as well as of the UPFC to contemplate in light of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court. All told, I do not find any force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to the Court below for compliance, if the decree holder feels constraint to put the decree for execution.