Downloads - Orders
Downloads
 Overview |
 Search Downloads |
 Submit file |
 Up |
| Category: Orders | ||
 Orders |
Files: 1327 | |
| Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format |
||
Files:
 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 
|
|
| 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. |
| P/171/2015 Sri K.V. Sebastine Idukki.
|
|
| The appellant is a consumer with consumer No.6613 (old No. 11719) of Electrical Section, Rajakumary KSEB under LT IV tariff and is conducting a small scale furniture unit in the name and style as Sebastian Industries. The service connection was effected with a connected load of 7110 Watts and as per the request of the appellant the connected load was enhanced to 7350 Watts and 14920 Watts on 03-03-2000 and 23-05-2001 respectively. Again the connected load of the consumer was further enhanced to 60 kW with effect from 29-01-2008 after remitting sufficient additional cash deposit. During the audit conducted by the Accountant General (Audit), it was detected that the consumer was given undue benefit to the tune of Rs.1,46,000.00 at Board’s cost. Based on the audit report the Assistant Engineer issued a demand notice for Rs.1,46,000.00 to the appellant. Aggrieved against this, a complaint was filed before the CGRF (Central), Ernakulam. Meanwhile, the appellant also filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which was disposed of with a direction to the CGRF to consider the petition by giving an opportunity to hear the complainant, vide judgment dated 20-07-2015 in W.P.(C) No. 29131. The CGRF dismissed the complaint vide order in OP No. 78/2015-16 dated 15-10-2015. Against the above order, the appellant has filed this appeal petition P/171/2015 before this Authority on 11-11-2015. The appellant again filed a Writ Petition No. 34470/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the petition directing this Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment dated 16-11-2015. The licensee is entitled to recover from the owner or occupier of any premises requiring supply the expenses reasonably incurred by the licensee for providing any electrical line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply as per Section 46 of Electricity Act. Here in this case, no separate transformer was installed either in the premises of the appellant or in the vicinity of his premises, the respondent has not incurred any expenditure on this account. In this background demand issued for Rs. 1,46,000.00 is hereby quashed. Appeal is admitted and the order of CGRF in OP No. 78/2015-16 dated 15-10-2015 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/167/2015 M/s Ahammed Roller Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd., Kozhikode
|
|
| M/s Ahammed Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, a High Tension with consumer Code No HTB-13/1331 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited having a contract Demand of 350 kVA, under Electrical Section, West Hill in the jurisdiction of Electrical Circle, Kozhikode. The Meter Testing Unit attached to TMR Division, Kannur inspected the premises of the appellant on 30-06-2014 based on the complaint dated 12-06-2014, declared the CT/PT unit as faulty and directed the appellant to replace the CT/PT with ratio 20/5A class 0.5 accuracy. The appellant was issued with revised electricity bills for the months of May, June and July 2014 amounting to Rs. 11,17,769.00 on the basis of average consumption of 109520 units per month subsequent to replacement of CT/PT. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kozhikode by filing a Complaint No. 61/2014-15. The CGRF dismissed the petition vide order dated 02-09-2015 by holding that the bill issued is in order. Still aggrieved with the above decisions of CGRF, the appellant has approached this Authority with this appeal petition on 21-10-2015. There is no reasonable justification for issuing short assessment bill for Rs. 11,17,769.00 and hence quashed. However, the respondent is directed to revise the bill based on the average consumption for the previous billing cycle from 03/2014, 04/2014 and 05/2014 as per Regulation 125(1) of Supply Code, 2014. The average consumption shall be levied only for a maximum period of 2 billing cycles as per Regulation 125(2). Order of CGRF in OP No. 61/20114-15. Appeal is found having some merits and is allowed to the extent as ordered. No order as to costs. |