Downloads - Orders
Downloads
 Overview |
 Search Downloads |
 Submit file |
 Up |
| Category: Orders | ||
 Orders |
Files: 1327 | |
| Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format |
||
Files:
 P/102/2015 - Sri. Syamalan Kilimanoor Thiruvananthapuram 
|
|
| The appellant is a domestic consumer with consumer no. 7584 under Electrical Section, Kilimanoor. The appellant alleges that the respondent had given service connection to his neighbour one Sri Jayaprasad from the LT line passing through the appellant’s property after inserting an electric post without his consent. Further the appellant stated that though he has applied for shifting the above mentioned electric line passing through his property and to get the service from the electric post erected 10m away from his house was not considered by the respondent. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara with a petition in OP No.1289/2014 which was disposed as follows. “Therefore the forum decided to dispose this petition by directing the opposite party to shift the electric post and lines after collecting the required charges. The opposite party is directed to prepare an estimate for shifting the electric post and lines through the pathway as proposed by the petitioner and serve it to the petitioner immediately. Also the line shall be shifted within two weeks from the date of remittance of the amount by the petitioner.” Not satisfied with the above order, the appellant filed this appeal petition before this Authority on 09-03-2015. Appellant is directed to submit application as per Regulation 95 of Supply Code, 2014 and the respondent shall carry out the work within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal is admitted. CGRF order is modified. |
| P/425/2013 - Sri Jimmy Joseph, M/s Highway Garage, Aluva
|
|
| Service connection No. 3366 given to M/s Highway Garage 11/237A under Electrical Section, Aluva North is industrial purpose (Automobile workshop) under LT IV tariff with a connected load of 10 kW. The APTS wing of the KSEB inspected the premises of the appellant on 05-07-2013 and issued with a penal bill amounting to Rs. 4,91,790/- by the Asst. Engineer, for unauthorized additional load and misuse of tariff. Aggrieved by the above, the review appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF, Ernakulam and the Forum disposed the same vide Order NO.CGRF-Cr/Comp.73/2013-14 dated 19-10-2013. Not satisfied by the above decision of CGRF, the review appellant has submitted an appeal petition before this Authority in Appeal No.P/425/2013. The appeal petition was disposed of having dismissed vide order dated 19-9-2014. The appellant again approached CGRF on 15-11-2013 with another complaint requesting to block any proceedings to change tariff from LT IV to LT VII A. The CGRF disposed the petition allowing the request and held that he is eligible for LT IV A tariff., vide order No. CGRF/CR/Comp-146/2013-14 dated 19-02-14. Now the Review Appellant has submitted this review petition with a plea to review on the ground that the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence. It is decided to reclassify the tariff category of the review appellant as LT IV A (Industrial). Appeal is admitted. |
| P/094/2014 - Smt. Payyanattu Radha, Kannur
|
|
| The appellant is a domestic consumer with Consumer No. 12235, under Electrical Section, Chovva, Kannur. On 14-06-2014 the power supply to the premises of the appellant was interrupted due to the falling of coconut bunch on the line. The appellant alleged that in spite of repeated requests made to the Section Office, which is only 3 km away from the premises, no one turned up from the respondent’s side for 4 days to restore the supply. Aggrieved by this the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF vide OP No. 33/2014-15 on 17-06-2014 which was dismissed by the CGRF. Challenging the above orders of CGRF, the appellant filed an appeal petition dated 05/02/2015 before this Authority and stands numbered as P/94/2015. Regulation 22 (d) of KSERC (CGRF & EO) Regulations, 2005 restricts the maintainability of the petition filed for the same cause of action and relief. Appeal is dismissed. |