Downloads - Orders
Downloads
 Overview |
 Search Downloads |
 Submit file |
 Up |
| Category: Orders | ||
 Orders |
Files: 1327 | |
| Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format |
||
Files:
 P/083/2015 - Sri. C.A. Nazar, House of Yesudas, Fort Kochi 
|
|
| The appellant is a Low Tension three phase consumer with consumer number 89 under Electrical Section, Fort Kochi. The service connection stands registered in the name of Sri Augustine Joseph with a connected load of 33265 watts. On 20-11-2012, an APTS inspection was conducted in the appellant’s premises and detected that the wiring in the CT meter box was damaged and hence the meter was not recording the actual consumption by making voltage fluctuations. Consequent upon the inspection, a short assessment bill dated 05-03-2013 for Rs. 28,841/- was issued to the appellant for the unaccounted consumption during 11/2012 and 12/2012. Aggrieved against this, the appellant filed a petition before the Hon’ble High Court with W.P. (C) No. 9809/2013 which was adjudicated directing the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Fort Kochi to hear the matter and dispose the petition. Accordingly the Assistant Engineer heard the appellant and confirmed the bill. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant approached the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Perumbavoor who in turn directed the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Mattancherry to examine the matter. But the Executive Engineer simply ratified the orders passed by the Assistant Engineer without adverting to any of the contentions made by the appellant in the said appeal. Hence the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF, Ernakulam which was disposed with a finding that 1. The short assessment bill dated: 05/03/2013 is in order. 2. The respondents are directed to take action against the officers who delayed the rectification of the anomalies in the meter. Aggrieved against the order, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. Order of CGRF set aside. The respondent is directed to revise the bill taking the average consumption for a previous period of 6 months from 10/2012 after deducting the amount already remitted. |
| P/084/2015 - Sri P.K. Shamsu, Chavakkad, Thrissur
|
|
| The appellant is a tenant of commercial consumer bearing consumer No.1777 under Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam, with a sanctioned load of 2000 watts. The grievance of the appellant is against the exorbitant bimonthly bill for Rs. 30,674/ issued on 20/6/2014. The appellant had approached the officers of the Board for redressal of his grievances, but without any result. Hence, the appellant lodged a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Central Region, Ernakulam. The Forum disposed the complaint without allowing the reliefs sought for, vide order No CGRF/Comp.No.43/2013-14/339 dated 03-08-2013. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal petition before this Authority on 14-1-2015. Set aside the order of CGRF and appeal is allowed. |
| Review Petition P/426/2013 - The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division,KSEBoard Ltd, Velloorkunnam, Muva
|
|
| The review respondent herein had approached this Authority by filing appeal petition dated 5-11-2013 against the order passed by the CGRF (Central) in complaint No. CGRF-CR/Comp.133/13-14 dated 28-10-2013. The assessment made in the case is without observing procedures to be followed during inspection, provisional assessment on detection of UAL/unauthorized extension etc as per guidelines issued by the Board vide order No. 2518/2013 dated 28-11-2013. The mahazar which is the crucial document is not seen produced by the respondent, even though it is claimed that it is prepared at the time of inspection. Hence this Authority has decided that the assessment is not sustainable before law and the appeal allowed. Now the review appellant contends that if the above dictum is applied, considerable injury will be resulted to review appellant i.e. the Licensee. Hence filed this review petition, with a plea to review the decision on the appeal. No valid grounds may not made by the Review Appellant hence dismissed. |