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/027/2019 - Smt. Aniamma George, Alappuzha 
|
|
| The appellant has filed an appeal petition in P/027/2019, being aggrieved by the decision taken by the CGRF in OP No. 60/2018-19 dated 05-03-2019. The appellant is a domestic consumer under Electrical Section, Edathua having consumer number 4790. The appellant finds difficulty for smooth trafficking due to erection of the Stay in her property. The CGRF, Ernakulam has disposed the petition filed by the appellant with the following orders. "(1) The respondent is directed to shift the stay wire within 7 days from the date of remittance of the labour charges by the petitioner, to the border to the compound wall of the petitioner’s property. 2) If the petitioner is not agree with this decision, the petitioner shall submit the consent from the concerned neighbours to shift the stay wire and remit the required charges." Still aggrieved by the order of the CGRF, the Appellant has filed the Appeal Petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above and the conclusions arrived at, this Authority upheld the decision taken by the CGRF in OP No.60/2018-19 dated 05-03-2019. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order on costs. |
| P/032/2019 - Sri. Shinoj S., Mavelikkara
|
|
| Smt. Sumangi R. Panicker and Smt. Divya S. Panicker, Sumanginilayam are the registered consumers of Electrical Section, Mavelikkara having electric connection with Consumer No. 3878 under LT VI F tariff, consumer number 25064 under LT I A tariff and consumer number 26609 under LT VIIA tariff respectively. The appellant is the husband of Smt. Sumangi R. Panicker. He is aggrieved by the exorbitant electricity bill amounting to Rs. 5,217/- to Consumer No. 3878 and the bill amounting to Rs. 7,806/- to Consumer No. 25064 issued by the respondent and damages occurred to the electrical equipments in the connection No. 26609 (shop) following the shifting of electrical pole near the shop. The appellant approached the CGRF with a complaint against the impugned bills. The CGRF, Ernakulam has dismissed the petition on finding that the subject matter is pending before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Mavelikkara and before the Electricity Ombudsman. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted the Appeal petition before this Authority. This Authority is not empowered with the jurisdiction of taking disciplinary action against the licensee’s officials and is not competent to award compensation as per rules and hence these are not considered and not admitted. For the reasons detailed above, the appeal Petition No. P/032/2019, filed by the appellant stands dismissed as it is found not maintainable before this Authority. The order dated 30-03-2019 in OP No. 69/2018 of CGRF, Ernakulam is upheld. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order on costs. |
| VIEW PETITION No. RP 03/2019 ON APPEAL PETITION No. P/007/2019 - The Assistant Executive Engineer, Wandoor
|
|
| The Review Petitioner is the respondent in Appeal No. P/007/2019. The review respondent/appellant is the Managing Partner of M/s. Mubarak Granite Industries, West Chathalloor, Othayi, Edavanna in Malappuram Dt, was having a low tension three phase industrial service connection with consumer number 18078, under Electrical Section, Edavanna, Malappuram. The appellant has complained that the energy meter in his premises is over reading and requested that the same may be tested at TMR Division. The appellant remitted the fee for testing the meter on 12/7/2011 and the meter was tested on 22/10/2011 at TMR Division, Shornur and the test report revealed that the meter was faulty as it showed abnormal pulses on load. The appellant then represented KSEB to refund the overcharged amount from 11/2009 to 10/2011. The KSEB has prepared a calculation statement that an amount of Rs. 15,74,558/- is to be reimbursed to the appellant, as the amount collected during the meter faulty period was in excess. On 31/12/2013, the supply was dismantled due to the upgradation of the electrical connection to High Tension (HT) and thereafter the cash deposit was refunded in January 2014.In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal 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. 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. |
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 | 2990 |
 | All | 4876980 |