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/080/2018 - Sri. Jaimon James, Kottayam 
|
|
| The appellant was a LT consumer who was running a metal crusher industry named Vallithottathil Industries, with consumer number 7820 under Electrical Section, Kidangoor. The electric connection was taken by installing a transformer of capacity 160 kVA under Minimum Guarantee basis valid for 7 years i.e. for the period from 19-11-2009 to 18-11-2016. As per the MG agreement executed by the appellant, he is liable to pay Rs.96032/- (Rupees Ninety six thousand and thirty two only} per annum up to 18-11-2016. Thereafter a new HT connection with transformer of 250 kVA capacity by replacing the 160 kVA was installed at the expenses of the appellant. The appellant had submitted a request on 01-12-2017 for refund of amount after depreciation of 160 kVA transformer which was removed by the Board. The request was rejected by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Pala. This LT connection was dismantled on 09-03-2018 on request from the appellant. Being not satisfied with the decision of the Deputy Chief Engineer, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara, with Petition No. OP 80/2018 and the Forum dismissed the petition, vide order dated 14th August 2018. Still not satisfied by the decision of the CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. Considering the above facts and legal provisions pertaining to the issue this Authority is of the considered view that the petition is not maintainable before this Authority. So, the appeal petition stands dismissed as it is found having no merits. The order of CGRF, Kottarakkara in No. 80/2018 dated 14-08-2018 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
| P/069/2018 General Secretary, Ponnani Chamber of Commerce, Malappuram
|
|
| The appellant is the General Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, Ponnani and represents a group of 12 LT industrial consumers under Electrical Section, Ponnani. The Audit team of Regional Audit Officer, Tirur conducted an inspection during the period from 25-09-2017 to 31-10-2017 and found that the consumers were issued with undercharged bills from 1/4/2014 to 31/3/2017. Accordingly the consumers were issued with short assessment bills. Aggrieved by this, the appellant had approached the CGRF (NR) by filing a petition in OP No. 189/2017-18. The Forum analysed that there was a short realization of revenue in both the current charges and OYEC-ECSC charges and directed the respondent to review the short assessment bills for short collection in current charges and OYEC-ECSC charges and to prepare fresh short assessment bills for each consumer. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, the respondent is directed to limit the period of reassessment and revise the bills of all the consumers except Consumer No. 61 for the period of 24 months prior to the month of 12/2016. There is no revision of period in the case of Consumer No. 61. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the Consumer is allowed as ordered and stands disposed of as such. The order of CGRF in 189/2017-18 dated 09-07-2018 is modified to this extent. No order on costs. |
| P/050/2018 to P/65/2018 Guruvayur, Thrissur
|
|
| The appellants are the individual Villa owners at Santhimadom Villa Project. The appellants’ grievance is that the collection of Rs.203.26 per square metre of the residential area from the Appellant to give service connections by installing 3 No.100 kVA transformers is against the regulations in the Supply Code and the respondent is bound to repay the excess amount collected from the appellants as against the regulations in the Supply Code. The appellants filed petitions before the CGRF, Ernakulam in OP Nos. 111 to 126 which were disposed of vide order dated 31-05-2018, by holding that it is better to abstain from going into the merits of the case as the subject matter on the same issue is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No.28266/2016. Aggrieved with the above decisions of CGRF, the appellants have approached this Authority with this appeal petition on 14-08-2018. Earlier an appeal petition No. 136/2015 on the same subject matter filed by one Sri. Jayaprakash was disposed by this Authority in order dated 18-01-2016. The brief fact of the case is as follows: M/s Santhimadom Builders and Developers applied for power demand for 1184.40 kVA for their two residential cum commercial complexes namely Kottapady North Project & South Project. But they abandoned the projects and the individual owners completed the villas later and they applied for electric connection separately. The individual owners completed residential villas of North Project and they were given electric connection after remitting the expenditure as demanded by the KSEB Limited. Few individual owners of South Project approached the Hon’ble High Court seeking direction to dispose of their applications for electric connections without insisting the payment of the expenses to be incurred for providing new transformer. The contention of the villa owners is that the total power requirement, as specified by the builder, will not come more than 1 MW and the demand for bearing cost of transformer and other equipments cannot be sustained. Aggrieved by the decision of the KSEBL some of the applicants approached the Honourable High Court. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the case by directing the respondents to provide electric connection on remittance of cost required for up-gradation of distribution system. Based on the judgment, 55 individual owners remitted the requisite amount proportionate to their plinth area and obtained connection. After availing the connection, one of the building owners, Sri Paramu Kumaran approached Hon'ble High Court stating that the total requirement of the present building owners comes only 350 kW which is less than 1 MW and requested to refund the excess amount remitted for availing service connection. In the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala have directed the writ petitioner, Sri Paramu Kumaran, S/o Paraman Kalluchirayil, to approach CGRF under Section 130(8) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code (KESC) 2014. Sri M Jayaprakash, Navitha Rooms, S2, AP3 201 D2, Iringapuram P.O., Guruvayur filed a petition before the CGRF requesting to refund the excess amount remitted for availing service connection and which was dismissed vide order dated 21-05-2015 holding that the petitioner does not come under the definition of “complainant†as per law. The appeal submitted by Sri Jayaprakash in Appeal No. 136/2015 was disposed by holding that the proportionate expenditure of Rs. 203.26 per square metre arrived by the respondent is found as excess and hence directed to recalculate the rate and to issue orders accordingly and also directed that the excess amount remitted by the all the applicants shall be adjusted in the future bills or to refund the amount. It was also insisted that as the service connections of 55 villas of the scheme were effected and in the circumstances the builder is not proceeding with the project and also considering the direction of Hon’ble High Court in this matter, connections to the rest of applicants may be given as per the provisions of Electricity Act and the Regulations. The said order of this Authority in the Appeal petition has been challenged by the KSEBL before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP (C) 28826 of 2016 and is pending for disposal. Since a writ petition filed by the respondent lies before the Hon. High Court of Kerala and in the light of the provision under 22(d) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, which restricts the maintainability of the petition filed for the same cause of action, the appeal petition filed by the appellants, need no further action at this Forum and hence needs to be rejected. For the reasons detailed above, the appeal Petitions, filed by the appellants stand dismissed as it is found not maintainable before this Authority. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. 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 | 4464 |
 | All | 4878454 |