Downloads - Orders
Downloads
 Overview |
 Search Downloads |
 Submit file |
 Up |
| Category: Orders | ||
 Orders |
Files: 1327 | |
| Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format |
||
Files:
 P/006/2016 Dr. N.G. Mejoy Sebastine Kochi – 682 012 
|
|
| The appellant is a consumer under Electrical Section, Cheranellore having 4 Nos. of electrical connections having the following consumer Nos. and tariffs. 1. Consumer No. 3376 LT I A II Floor 2. Consumer No. 3377 LT I A I Floor 3. Consumer No. 3378 LT VII B Ground Floor 4. Consumer No. 3379 LT I A Ground Floor The connections are registered in the name of Smt. Mema P.G., the appellant’s mother-in-law and the appellant is the occupant of the building at present. On 17-09-2015, a team of APTS inspected the premises and detected that the service connections with consumer Nos. 3377 and 3379 issued for domestic purpose are being used for commercial purposes. Based on the above findings the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Cheranellore issued two penal bills dated 19-09-2015 for Rs. 11,872.00 (consumer no. 3379) and Rs. 14,407.00 (consumer no. 3377) which was remitted by the appellant on 25-09-2015. Aggrieved against this, the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF (Central Region), Ernakulam. The Forum dismissed the petition vide order No. 91/2015-16 dated 23-1-2016 by holding that the case is not maintainable as the disputed penal bill was issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Against the decisions of the CGRF, the appellant has approached this Authority with this appeal petition. In the case at hand it is evident that even before affording an opportunity to file objections and even before conducting any personal hearing the respondent demanded payment of the amount of penalty provisionally assessed. Such a demand cannot be sustained under law and liable to be quashed. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. The appeal petition is found having some merits and is admitted. Order of CGRF No. 91/2015-16 dated 23-1-2016 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/181/2015 Smt. Marykutty Thomas, Kottayam.
|
|
| The appellant, Smt. Marykutty Thomas, is a consumer under Electrical Section, Kottayam East with consumer No 17018 under LT IA tariff. On 20-08-2014 the APTS Kottayam unit conducted an inspection in the appellant's premises and detected theft of electricity. Consequent to that a penal bill amounting to Rs. 29,000.00 towards the penalty under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was served on the appellant and the same was remitted. Later, the appellant had filed complaint before the higher officials of the KSEB Limited against the irresponsibility and negligence of the Lineman and Overseer whose action caused accusation of theft of energy and for the remittance of penal charges. The appellant also approached the CGRF by filing a petition for taking appropriate action against the alleged staff of licensee and the Forum in its order dated 18-11-2015 in OP No.1534/2015 held that “This petition is against a particular staff of the licensee, who had committed mistake, which caused grievances to the consumer. The licensee had already taken steps for action. This Forum has no power or jurisdiction to take action against the staff of the licensee, who had committed mistake against the consumer, during the course of his employment. However the Forum directs the licensee to take immediate steps for redressing the grievances of the petitioner with an open mind.” Not satisfied with the above order, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. Without going deep into the merits of the case this Authority is of the view that the respondent had exceeded their powers in booking the case under Section 135 of the Act and in raising the bill for the offence of theft of electricity. The Assessing Officer disposed the appeal even without applying mind to do justice to the appellant. As this Authority have no power or jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the staff of the licensee who have committed dereliction of duties and negligence, it is decided to direct the licensee to take appropriate action against the staff concerned. Also it is directed to review the case of the appellant after applying mind to do justice and to refund the amount collected from the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. |
| P/180/2015 Sri Chandransekharan Nair N , Thiruvanathapuram
|
|
| The appellant is one of the complainants in the OP No. 1511/2015 filed before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (South), Kottarakkara and also a domestic consumer under Electrical Section, Uchakada, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainants in the OP No. 1511/2015 are facing inconvenience due to an overhead electric line passing over their property. The agony and disturbance caused due to the crossing of the electric line over their properties was brought to the notice of the respondents by the appellant and five others and had requested for shifting the said 11 kV line (Pozhiyoor feeder). Accordingly steps were taken to shift the disputed electric line from the existing route and an estimate has been prepared for an amount of Rs. 1,15,015.00. In order to carry out the shifting of 11 kV line from the property to the road side, the existing 11 kV line (Uchakada feeder) drawn through the road is to be shifted to the other side of the road. For carrying out this shifting work some trees are to be cut and removed, but some locals have raised objections against the tree cutting. The appellant and five others have agreed to pay the tree cutting compensation, but still the locals objected. In order to avoid the objections a revised estimate for Rs. 1,72,019.00 was prepared including insertion of A pole. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Parasala had approached the District Magistrate with a request for shifting the line as there is no feasible alternate route for avoiding the property crossing. Accordingly the Additional District Magistrate had issued orders dated 28-10-2014 allowing to shift the electric line as proposed and to cut the trees or branches after giving tree cutting compensation to the concerned. During this time, the Chairman, Neyyanttinkara Taluk Integrated Power Loom Village Industrial Co-operative society Ltd., Uchakada had also raised objection against proposed shifting of the overhead line. Accordingly the matter was again referred to Additional District Magistrate who issued orders dated 31-01-2015 allowing to shift the electric line as proposed after cut and removal of the trees or branches of Smt. Sunaja. Subsequently the respondent issued a letter for arranging cut and removal of trees/ branches of trees and to remit the estimated amount. But the appellant approached the CGRF with a petition requesting to reduce the estimate amount and also to take appropriate action to cut and removal of the trees and to shift the line through a feasible route so as to avoid further inconvenience to the appellant. The Forum in a combined order dated 30-09-2015 in OP No.1511/2015, OP No.1540/2015 and OP No. 1547/2015 held that “the respondent shall arrange the shifting work as per the direction of the Hon’ble Additional District Magistrate.” Not satisfied with the above order, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. Since the matter is still pending before the Additional District Magistrate this Authority feels that it is not proper to intervene the matter at this stage. In this background, respondent is directed to follow up the case and take necessary steps for a speedy disposal of the case in accordance with the directions obtained from the Additional District Magistrate. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. |