Downloads - Orders
Downloads
 Overview |
 Search Downloads |
 Submit file |
 Up |
| Category: Orders | ||
 Orders |
Files: 1327 | |
| Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format |
||
Files:
 P/116/2015 - Smt. Jaseentha Lazar, Kollam 
|
|
| The appellant’s grievance in this appeal petition is that on 13/12/2014 her neighbor Sri, Baiju trespassed into her property, drawn electric line and installed tube lights from the Baiju’s electric connection. The appellant had submitted a complaint before the respondent for removing the tube lights since the extension of supply from Baiju’s connection and lights were installed in her property without her consent. It is alleged that the respondent had not taken any action on her complaint in time. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara with a petition in OP No. 1367/2014 which was dismissed due to lack of merits. Against the above Order of the Forum, the appellant filed this appeal. Since the issue has been settled there is no further orders are necessary in the matter. However, the appellant is free to approach appropriate Forum for claiming damages if so advised. Appeal is disposed. |
| P/118/2015 - The Chief Engineer (E&I), M/s FACT Ltd., Cochin Division, Ambalamedu, Kochi
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Abraham Roy Mathew, Chief Engineer (Electrical & Instrumentation), M/s FACT, Cochin Division, representing a Public Sector Unit under Government of India is a consumer under the power distribution licensee, Cochin Port Trust. The appellant has taken possession of fertilizer berth and ammonia berth at Willington Island area of Cochin Port Trust for long lease. The respondent provided with three service connections to the above premises of the appellant with consumer numbers 100000723, 100000729 and 700000730 having a contract demand of 900 kVA, 312 kVA and 725 kVA respectively under HT IV commercial tariff. The appellant has requested to provide HT I A industrial tariff to the above consumer numbers 100000723 and 100000730 which was denied by the licensee. The grievance of the appellant is against the wrong and incorrect fixation of tariff by the under HT lV Commercial tariff it is alleged that the appellant is eligible to get a classification under HT-1 A Industrial tariff. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Cochin Port Trust which was disposed vide Order No. 04/2014 dated 05-05-2015, directing (a) Since the Petitioner seeking relief for re-categorization of tariff from HT-IV to HT- 1 from Financial Year 2015-16 onwards, the petitioner may represent the matter before the Hon’ble KSERC during the public hearing scheduled prior to the finalization of Retail Supply Tariff for FY 2015-16, which would be made applicable from 01-10-2015 2 (b) the respondent shall revise the revenue from sale of power based on the decision of KSERC on the above issue and submit to the KSERC for arriving at a reasonable BST applicable to the respondent accordingly.” Challenging the decision of the CGRF, the appellant approached this Authority by filing this appeal petition. The findings of the CGRF of the licensee is not in order and hence set aside. The respondent is hereby directed to re-categorize the appellant's tariff as HT 1 A at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal is allowed. |
| P/115/2015 - Smt. Rema, Seva Sadanam,, Vaikom
|
|
| The appellant is a domestic consumer with Consumer No. 2404 under Electrical Section, Chempu. This service connection stands registered in the name of Smt. Rema, Sevasadanam with a connected load of 340 watts. While so, on 29-10-2014, the APTS, Kottayam conducted an inspection in the premises and detected unauthorized additional extension of supply and connected 645 watts load, to a poultry farm functioning nearby her house. On the basis of the site mahazar prepared, a provisional bill for Rs. 47,450/- was issued to the consumer, under Sec.126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Aggrieved against this bill, the consumer filed objection before the Assessing officer i.e. the Assistant Engineer who disposed of the petition by confirming the provisional bill after allowing a hearing. Still not satisfied, the appellant then lodged a complaint before the CGRF, Kottarakkara which was dismissed, vide order no. OP No. 1390/2015 dated 23-03-2015. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has submitted this Appeal petition before this Authority. Since the dispute pertaining to bill raised under Section 126 of Act the complaint is not maintainable before this Authority. Appellant is directed to file an appeal under Section 127 before the Appellate Authority. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. CGRF order is upheld. |