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:
 REVIEW PETITION NO. RP/02/2019 IN APPEAL PETITION No. P/089/2018 - The Assistant Executive Engineer, Karunagappally South, 
|
|
| The review respondent/appellant is the Managing partner of the M.G. Roller Flour Mill, an SSI Unit conducting flour making unit. The inspecting authorities of TMR Thirumala conducted a field inspection in the review respondent’s/appellant's premises on 02.08.2017 and found that the PT Secondary RY and BY Voltages are low and hence the PT unit was suspected to be faulty and directed him to enhance the contract demand and to replace the PT unit with new PT of accuracy class 0.2 and to change CT with ratio 10/5 A to 15/5 A with accuracy Class 0.2S. The review petitioner has imposed penalty as 50% extra over the prevailing rate applicable both demand and energy for two months during which the appellant failed to replace the faulty metering component, and one month thereafter. The review respondent has challenged the penal bill before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum in O.P. No. 94/2018 and the CGRF dismissed the petition vide order dated 05-11-2018. Aggrieved by the order of the CGRF, the review respondent/appellant has submitted appeal petition against the orders of CGRF which was admitted in appeal no. 89/2018 and disposed of the appeal by quashing the 50% extra imposed for three months over the prevailing rate applicable both demand and energy charge, vide order dated 27-02-2019. The review petitioner has filed this review petition against the orders of this Authority. In view of the above discussions the review jurisdiction is limited to rectify a mistake or error which is apparent on the face of records and it cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction. So, in view of the fact that the review petitioner has not pointed out anything which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the matter earlier, I hold the review petition is not maintainable and hence rejected. |
| P/013/2019 - Sri. Raju T K., Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant is a consumer under Electrical Section, Palarivattom. There are three connections with Con No 35451, 34167 and 35450 in the premises owned by the appellant for TKR Metro Residency, Devankulangara, Edappally, Kochi 24. The APTS Ernakulam wing inspected the premises of the appellant on 28-05-2018 and detected unauthorized load of 4558 watts connected to consumer number 35451. A site Makassar was prepared and accordingly a provisional bill dated 01/06/2018 for Rs. 62500/- issued under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. Considering the objection raised by the appellant, the respondent finalized the penal bill to Rs. 4800/- and the appellant remitted the amount on 08-08-2018. The appellant was received electricity bills for the connections bearing consumer numbers 35451, 35450 and 34167 for the amounts Rs. 258498/-, Rs.39842/- and Rs.16932/- respectively. Against the issuance of the bills the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing W.P. (C) No.19827/2018 which was dismissed directing the petitioner to pursue the complaint before the CGRF by making deposit of 50% of the amount of energy bills. According to the direction by the Hon High Court against W. P. C No 19827/2018, the 50% of the disputed bill of Rs 2,58,498 has been remitted by the consumer on 30th June 2018. The meter provided for Con No 35451 was checked and found that a magnetic tamper was recorded. The appellant filed a petition before the CGRF and the CGRF passed an order dated 31.12.2018 stating that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 in consumer number 35451. Further the Forum made clear that the petitioner/ appellant would be at liberty to file appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority U/Sec. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 relating to consumer No. 35451 for Rs. 2,58,498/-. Aggrieved against the other bill amounts, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority. Considering facts of the case, this Authority decide that the order of the CGRF stands upheld. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is not allowed and stands disposed of as such. No order as to costs. |
| P/010/2019 Sri. Haridasan Kozhikode
|
|
| The appellant is a consumer with consumer number 1167310009185 under Electrical Section, Thunery having LT I tariff. He is aggrieved by the exorbitant electricity bill dated 10-08-2018 amounting to Rs. 30,425/- for the bimonthly consumption from 12-06-2018 to 10-08-2018. The appellant approached the CGRF with a complaint against the impugned bill. The CGRF, Kozhikode has dismissed the petition on finding that earth leakage due to the inferior quality of main switch might have been the reason for the high consumption during 08/2018. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted the Appeal petition before this Authority. Actually an excess consumption was recorded by the energy meter in the disputed period, but the reason could not be ascertained correctly by the respondent during his inspection in the premises or by testing the meter in an approved laboratory. But it is a fact that there was flood and breakdowns in the distribution system in that area. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide to set aside the bill amounting to Rs. 30425/- issued to the appellant. The respondent is directed to revise the bill for the period from 12-06-2018 to 10-08-2018 by taking average consumption of three bimonthly spot bills after 21-09-2018. This shall be done at any rate within 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 found having merits and is allowed. The order of CGRF, Northern Region in Petition No. OP/87/2018-19/dated 12-12-2018 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 | 3640 |
 | All | 4877630 |