Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 1 of 287
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 860
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
P/062/2019 - Smt. Sheela Mani, Kottayam


The appellant is a domestic consumer having consumer number 5004 under Electrical Section, Vazhoor, Kottayam. The grievance of the appellant relates to frequent interruptions of power supply in Plackalkunnu area under the Section and the residents in the area submitted petitions before the authorities of the KSEBL regarding the power failure and low voltage problems. Not satisfied with the actions taken by the KSEBL authorities, the appellant and others filed petition before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kottarakkara stating the frequent interruptions and low voltage problem in their premises. The Forum has disposed of the petition stating that the petition is a bogus one and lacks merit. Still aggrieved, the appellant who is the second person in the mass petition has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I direct the respondent to take the following actions: 1. Expedite the construction of a sub station in Vazhoor Section area. 2. The lines and transformers shall be maintained properly. 3. Any operation in Nedumavu 11 kV feeder shall be coordinated by the custodians of the feeder. 4. Use insulated cables/wires to the maximum extent possible in construction works. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly and the Appeal Petition filed by the appellant, stands disposed of to the extent ordered. The order of CGRF, Southern Region, Kottarakkara in OP No. 57/2019 dated 20—07-2019, is set aside. No order on costs.
P/066/2019 - Sri Sivan M.K., Ernakulam


The appellant is the consumer under the Electrical Section, Chengamanad. The appellant has requested the respondent to shift the electric line and post located in appellant’s property after accepting a portion of the deposit work amount from him. Since further action has not been taken by the respondent, the appellant filed petition before the CGRF, Ernakulam in OP No.18/2019-20 requesting to shift the line and post from his property. Being not satisfied by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has filed this Appeal petition before this Authority against orders dated 29-07-2019 issued by the CGRF. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide as follows: 1. The respondent shall shift the LT three phase line passing through the property of the appellant to the road after realising the labour charge only. 2. The appellant shall bear the cost of the stay/strut to be used on either end of the line to be shifted along with labour charge. 3. The respondent shall convert the single-phase line along the road by adding two conductors bearing the cost of the materials and the appellant shall bear the labour charge of this conversion. 4. A revised estimate as above shall be prepared and communicated to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order by the respondent. 5. The respondent shall carry out the work on receipt of the revised estimate amount from the appellant within a period of 15 days. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly and the Appeal Petition filed by the appellant, stands allowed to the extent ordered. The order of CGRF, Ernakulam in 18/2019-20 dated 29-07-2019 is set aside. No order on costs.
REVIEW PETITION No. RP 05/2019 in APPEAL PETITION No. P/045/2019 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam


The Review Petitioner is the respondent in Appeal No. P/045/2019. The review respondent is a consumer under the Electrical Section, Aymanam under VI F tariff bearing consumer No. 13859. He has taken a Single phase connection in 2015 at the time of the construction of his house. After the completion of the construction work, the review respondent/appellant applied for load enhancement under LT 1 A domestic tariff and conversion of service connection to LT three phase, on18-07-2017. In the application, the connected load applied was 51326 Watts, but on inspection it was found that the connected load at the premises as 44 kW (leaving all unconnected equipments and plug points). On 03-01-2018, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pallom accorded sanction for an estimate amounting to Rs.12.23 lakhs for constructing 950m of 11 kV SC OH line and installing one 100 kVA transformer at the property of the review respondent/appellant for meeting the appellant’s load requirement and accordingly demand notice was issued to the appellant by the review petitioner/respondent. The review respondent /appellant was not willing to bear the expenditure required to meet his power requirement stating that the review respondent/appellant is bound to remit the expenditure only if the power requirement is above one Megawatt. Challenging the demand notice issued, the review respondent/appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Southern Region which was disposed vide Order No. OP 20/2019 dated 21-05-2019, ordering that the distribution licensee is empowered to recover the expenditure incurred for providing supply as per Regulation 32 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 and the Forum dismissed the case. Aggrieved by this, the appeal petition filed by the review respondent/appellant was found having merits and was allowed to the extent it was ordered. As per order No. P 45/2019 dated 26-08-2019, the following decisions were taken. In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal petition. The review petitioner is challenging the decision of this Authority by raising fresh arguments in the review petition. The review jurisdiction is limited to rectify a mistake or an error which is apparent on the face of records and it cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction. This Authority has considered all the arguments while disposing the appeal petition. A decision once rendered by a competent Authority/Court on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be liable to be agitated over again before the same Authority/Court. If the review petitioner is aggrieved by the order of this Authority, it is free for him to challenge that order before the appropriate upper authority. In this background, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued. In view of the above discussions, I hold that review petition is not maintainable and hence rejected. Having decided as above, it is ordered accordingly.

Contact Us

Charangattu Bhavan,
Building No-36/895,
Mamangalam- Anchumana Road,
Edappally- P O.Kochi 682024, KERALA,
Phone#  +91 484 2346488

Any Queries?

Send an email to

Do you Know?

Consumers should submit  petitions to CGRF first before appealing Ombudsman.

Visitors Counter