KERALA ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN
D.H. Road & Foreshore Road Junction,
Near Gandhi Square,
Ernakulam, Kerala-682 016
Ph: 0484 2346488, Mob: 8714356488
Downloads - Orders
Downloads
 Overview |
 Search Downloads |
 Submit file |
 Up |
| Category: Orders | ||
 Orders |
Files: 1245 | |
| Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format |
||
Files:
 P/031/2019 - Sri. S.M. Hamsa, Ernakulam 
|
|
| The Consumer No. 1157313019121 is a registered consumer at Electrical Section, Thrikkakara West in the name of Executive Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi with a connected load 124 KW in I -A Tariff from 29.08.2005. The appellant in the Appeal No. P/31/2019 is the Secretary, Thrikkakara NRI Flats Allottees Association, Thrikkakara. The appellant was served with an arrear bills for Rs.1,45,700/- and Rs. 51,639/- towards low voltage supply surcharge for the usage of 124 kW connected load for the Low Tension Service connection without availing High Tension service connection. The case of the appellant is that the original connected load of the Consumer in 2005 was 124 k W and the same was for 4 Towers in the complex and a tower was separated in 2008 itself with the full concurrence and on completion of the procedure as per regulation 8 and 9 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code with the KSEB Authorities with Eastern Group, and hence the connected Load was reduced to 90 k W from 2008 itself and hence the present imposing of penalty and fine of Rs. 1,97,339/- is illegal and unsustainable. The appellant has remitted Rs. 1,97,339/- as low voltage surcharge. An objection was filed before the Executive Engineer for the refund of the amount collected and not getting any positive response from the licensee, the appellant had approached the CGRF (CR) by filing a petition in No. 86/2018-19. The Forum dismissed the petition due to lack of merits, vide order dated 30-03-2019. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. It is not all proper to issue a bill for low voltage surcharge alleging the appellant had been using 124 kW connected load, of which the licensee had already removed 34 kW in 2008 itself without the knowledge of the appellant. In this case variation of connected load was done by the respondent, not by the appellant at his request. From the conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide to quash the short assessment bills amounting to Rs. 1,45,700/- and Rs. 51,639/- issued to the appellant. The amount collected shall be refunded by adjusting it in appellant’s future bills. Interest at bank rate from the date of remittance to the date of transfer of the amount shall also be credited as advance payment. This shall be done within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is allowed as ordered and stands disposed of as such. The order of CGRF in OP No. 86/2018-19 dated 30-03-2019 is set aside. No order on costs. |
| P/033/2019 - Sri. Narayanan K., Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant represents M/s Indus Towers Ltd., a company providing passive infra structure service to telecommunication providers. The appellant have two electric connections under Electrical Section, Perumanna with consumer numbers 7697 and 7801 under LT VII A tariff having connected loads 15 kW and 20 kW respectively. The appellant was given a short assessment bills amounting to Rs. 2,23,132/- and Rs. 2,94,641/- towards the short assessment of penalization in respect of consumer nos.7801 & 7697 for UAL detected in the premises during the inspection on 30/07/2009 and additional load declared under voluntary discloser scheme respectively including surcharge from 2011 onwards, vide letters dated 23/11/2018 & 12/12/2018. The appellant had filed petition against the above bills before the CGRF Northern Region Kozhikode and the CGRF by its order dated 30/03/2019, partially admitted the petition and decided to quash the short assessment bill in respect of Consumer No. 11673007697 and in the case of consumer no. 1167341007801, the penal bill is found sustainable. The Assistant Engineer Electrical Section Perumanna vide the notice dated 17/04/2019 directed to remit the penal bill amount of Rs. 1,22,353/- in respect of consumer no.7801with a surcharge of Rs.1,82,076/- (total Rs. 3,04,429/-). Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide as follows. Instead of filing appeal before the aforesaid statutory authority, the appellant herein approached first the CGRF and thereafter this Authority. Moreover, CGRF / Electricity Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to unauthorized use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in view of the bar under Sub Clause (vii) (I) of Clause 2 (f) of the Regulations. It is therefore held that the remedy available to the appellant is only an appeal before the Statutory Authority under Section 127 and that this appeal petition is not maintainable. The order of the CGRF is set aside. The appeal petition is rejected as not maintainable. No order as to costs. The appellant is at liberty to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. No coercive action shall be taken by the respondent against the appellant during the appeal period, based on the pending bills under dispute in this case. |
| P/036/2019 - Sri. Narayanan K., Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant represents M/s Indus Towers Ltd., a company providing passive infra structure service to telecommunication providers. The appellant is a 3 phase LT VI F consumer bearing number 18918 under Electrical Section, Thodupuzha No. II, with a connected load of 22 kW. The appellant is paying the current charges regularly without any dues or delay. As per the observations of the Regional Audit Officer, a short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 2,46,206/- due to meter faulty period from 07/2014 to 06/2016 has been issued to the consumer on 15-09-2018. An objection against the demand was filed before the Assistant Engineer on 25-09-2018. He rejected the petition without quoting any valid reason or regulations and directed the appellant to remit the short assessed amount, vide the letter dated 15-10-2018. Against the short assessment bill, the appellant had approached the CGRF, Ernakulam by filing a petition No. OP No. 74/2018-19. The Forum disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to revise the bill on the basis of the average of three billing cycles after meter replacement as per regulation 125 (2) of Supply Code 2014, vide order dated 30-03-2019. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide to quash the short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 246206/- issued to the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is allowed as ordered and stands disposed of as such. The order of CGRF in OP No. 74/2018-19 dated 30-03-2019 is set aside. No order on costs. |
Contact Us
Any Queries?
Send an email to info@keralaeo.org
Do you Know?
Consumers should submit petitions to CGRF first before appealing Ombudsman.
Visitors Counter
 | Today | 2370 |
 | All | 4876360 |