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/073/2018 Sri. Alex Antony, Thiruvananthapuram 
|
|
| The appellant is having a three phase electric connection with Consumer No. 9329 of Electrical Section, Cantonment for running an establishment in the name and style “Digital House†under LT IV A industrial tariff. While so on 10-08-2017, the APTS of KSEBL conducted an inspection in the premises and found that an unauthorised connected load of 13983 watts in the premises and also detected dissimilar phase association of current and voltage at the terminal of ToD meter installed in the premises. Accordingly, the appellant was served with a short assessment bill, assessing for a period of 53 months (3/2013 to 7/2017), when the meter was found recording 30% less than the actual, so as to recover the unrecorded portion of energy, for Rs. 4,11,698/-. The consumer filed objection before the Assessing officer, the Asst. Engineer, against the said assessment. The Assistant Engineer has revised the bill to Rs. 2,11,475/- for a period of 24 months. Being not satisfied with the decision of the Assistant Engineer, the consumer approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara, with Petition No. OP 48/2018 and the Forum disposed of the petition, vide order dated 13th July 2018, stating that as per Reg. 152 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, the licensee can realize the loss sustained.. But preparation of short assessment bill based on the Reg. 125 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 is not correct since Reg. 125 shall apply only for billing in the case of defective or damaged meterâ€. The Assistant Engineer had again revised the bill to Rs. 89,992/- for a period of 24 months. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant has submitted the Appeal petition before this Forum. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide to set aside the short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 89,992/- issued to the appellant. The respondent is directed to revise the bills for the consumption for the period of 24 months prior to the rectification of the defects of the energy meter by taking an average consumption of 09/2017, 10/2017 and 11/2017i.e. Normal average 2875 units (average of 3120, 2600 & 2904), Off peak average 70 units (average of 40, 80 & 90 units) and Peak average 687 units (average of 720, 640 & 700 units). Accordingly the respondent shall raise a bill for the invalid phase association period from 01-08-2015 to 31-07-2017, and issue the revised bill to the consumer within fifteen days.   Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is allowed to this extent as ordered and stands disposed of as such. The order of CGRF in 48/2018 dated 13-07-2017 is modified to this extent. No order on costs. |
| P/074/2018 Sri. Gangadharan C ,Kannur
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Gangadharan, is a domestic consumer with consumer No. 10105 under Electrical Section, Kakkayangad having connected load of 4250 Watts. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent issued an exorbitant bill amounting to Rs. 23,119/- on 28-9-2017 for a bimonthly consumption of 2811 units. The appellant approached the respondent with a complaint against the impugned bill. But the respondent stated that they have checked the accuracy of the meter and no variations or discrepancies were noticed during the testing of the existing meter. Accordingly the respondent directed the appellant to remit the bill amount. Being aggrieved against the direction, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kozhikode with a request to grant 12 equal monthly installments and the Forum disposed of the petition vide order no. OP 120/2017-18 dated 16-01-2018 allowing the petition. The appellant had filed an appeal petition before this Authority with a request to waive the bill amount of Rs. 23,119/-. The request of the appellant before the CGRF was for granting installments in the bill amount, but before this Authority is to waive the bill stating other arguments, which were not considered by the CGRF. Hence the appellant was allowed to remit the previous bill amount for the month of 9/2017 for the time being and the appellant was directed to prefer a petition describing his grievances before CGRF by complying with the formalities for filing petition, if he desires so and the CGRF shall consider the same, vide order no. P/09/2018 dated 30-04-2018. On the basis of this order, the appellant submitted another petition before the CGRF, which was dismissed in Petition OP No. 35/2018-19 dated 31-07-2018. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed appeal petition before this Authority with a request to waive the bill amount of Rs. 23,119/-. From the analysis done and the conclusions arrived at, which are detailed above, I take the following decisions. The bill for Rs. 23,119/- is quashed. The respondent is directed to revise the bill for the period from 4-5-2017 to 28-9-2017 by taking the average of the consumption of three billing cycles after 3-11-2017 after deducting the bills already paid during the disputed period. The order of CGRF, Kozhikode vide order no. P/35/2018-19 dated 31-07-2018 is set aside. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is found having merits and is allowed. No order on costs. |
| P/075/2018 Sri. Mohan Rajan, Kottayam
|
|
| Sri Mohan Rajan, the appellant, had obtained a 3 phase Electric connection with consumer No. 14332 in Electrical Section, Gandhi Nagar under MG (Minimum Guarantee) scheme on 10-03-2008 with a connected load of 38 kW, for running a pipe manufacturing unit under LT-IV industrial tariff. The MG period for which the consumer is bound to pay the minimum amount as per the Agreement was for seven years from 3/2008. The appellant stopped the unit in 2014. The appellant had remitted MG amount up to 02/2014 only and submitted an application for disconnection of the electric service connection on 03-07-2014 since he faced difficulty to run the factory and finally the service was dismantled on 17-11-2014. In order to realize the arrear amount and the balance MG amount a notice was served to the consumer on 11/09/2014 for Rs. 86,443/-. The consumer challenged the arrear before the Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum (South) by filing OP No. 1275/2014 and the CGRF by its order dated 03/02/2015 directed to reassess the impugned amount subject to the self remuneration condition of the line and transformer. The impugned bill for Rs. 86,443/- was revised to Rs. 26,304/- excluding the MG amount of Rs. 60,139/- which includes demand charges for Rs. 25,830/-, meter rent Rs. 474/- and surcharge Rs. 14,993/-. Against the bill the consumer again approached the CGRF and the Forum quashed the bill issued to the appellant and directed KSEBL to revise the bill excluding surcharge portion. Accordingly after waiving surcharge amount, a revised bill was issued to the appellant on 14/06/2018 for Rs. 26,304/-. Against the bill again the appellant approached the CGRF with a review petition and the same was rejected by the Forum on 4/8/2018. Not satisfied with the decision of the CGRF, the appellant filed this appeal petition before this Forum. This Forum intends to look into the facts of any ‘over payment’ and whether he is eligible for relief if any. The service was found dismantled on 17-11-2014. The MG period expires on 02/2015 and the appellant remitted the MG amount up to 02/2014. The Line and Transformer (erected under MG scheme) is not in use by appellant and not required in future. A total number of 127 consumers were given connections from the transformer and the line so far. As per rules, the Assistant Executive Engineer shall review whether the line has become self remunerative, if the minimum guarantor give an application for termination of minimum guarantee agreement considering the details of total consumers connected from the line. The KSEBL is not supposed to penalize the consumer once the MG line has become self remunerative. In this case the respondent has not correctly assessed when the line has become self remunerative. Instead the respondent simply removed the MG amount from the short assessment bill for the months from 04/2014 to 12/2014 issued by him, without conducting review of the self remunerative period. The respondent had not submitted the relevant basic data used for the preparation of demand charge, details of self remuneration, if any, details of adjustment of security deposit. Further the meter rent shown in the statement is not reliable. Considering the above facts, the bill for Rs. 26,304/- is not sustainable and hence quashed. The respondent shall also take action to review the MG period by considering the new connections given from the transformer and Line and declare as Line self remunerative and settle the claims accordingly. The adjustment details of the Security Deposit of Rs. 19,000/- are also not furnished by the respondent. Hence the respondent is directed to refund the Security Deposit Rs. 19,000/- to the appellant with interest admissible. The appellant’s claim for surplus amount remitted under MG scheme for the period from 10-03-2008 to 01-11-2010 is not allowed. The respondent shall settle the claim within 60 days of this order, with communication to the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the consumer is found having merits and is allowed to the extent ordered. The order of the CGRF in 24/2018 dated 27-04-2018 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 | 4445 |
 | All | 4878435 |