| The review appellants are the promoters and builders of the high rise building complexes, in Thiruvananthapuram city limits under the jurisdiction of different Electrical Sections of KSEB. All the appellants have approached the review respondents (Kerala State Electricity Board), requesting power supply to their buildings. Accordingly, the review respondent extended 11 kV supply to the said premises to meet their requirement of power which is more than 50 kVA after collecting the estimated cost required for the work.
The electrical works of 11 kV cable laying up to the premises of review appellant from the nearby existing distribution system, erection of indoor metering panel in the high rise building were all carried out by the review appellant themselves, after incurring its material and labour costs and paying the supervision charges to review respondent. It is alleged that the review respondent had included the material cost and some extraneous costs which need not be included for calculating 10% supervision charges.
Further, the review appellants also opposes the collection of cost of RMU as it is part of the distribution licensees system and other sum such as road cutting charges, amount for PTCC approval and miscellaneous costs included by the review respondent in the estimate with interest. According to them, the collection of such sum and realizing supervision charge as 10% of the capital costs were never authorized by any Act or Rules and Regulations created by the KSERC.
Being aggrieved by the actions of review respondent, the review appellants had submitted complaints before the CGRF, Kottarakkara, praying for refund of unauthorized excess amount collected. The CGRF dismissed the above petitions and not satisfied by the decision of CGRF, the review appellants approached this Authority with appeal petitions. Since the appeal petitions filed as above were seen containing identical issues and are found having some merits, a common judgment was issued by the Authority and allowed the appeal to the extent as ordered. Still aggrieved, the review appellants have approached this Authority with a plea to review the decision taken on the above appeal petitions.
No mistake or apparent errors on the face of records were pointed out by the review appellants which warrant the intervention of this Authority to review the order dated 26-06-2013. Hence the review petitions are devoid of merits and dismissed. Having decided as above it is ordered accordingly. |
|
|
Data
|
| Size |
368.75 KB |
| Downloads |
1259 |
| Created |
2016-03-11 00:00:00 |
|
|
|
Overview
Search Downloads
Submit file
Up
P/288/2012, P/312/2012, P/319/2012 P/332/2012, P/320/2012 & P/329/2012 - Smt. Bindu Riya Alex Kuravankonam, Smt. Jasmine Rajesh, Thiruvananthapuram Sri K.C. Chandrahasan Thiruvananthapuram 