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/077/2018 Sri. Roy George, Kottayam 
|
|
| The appellant, the General Manager of M/s Parayil Exports is a HT consumer with H Code LCN6/5168 under Electrical Section, Barananganam. The appellant obtained electricity originally under LT IV industrial tariff with consumer N.1850. But later in 2007, the appellant was reclassified under LT VII A category pursuant to Tariff Order 2007. Against this the appellant approached the CGRF, Ernakulam by filing complaint No. 78/2008-09 and the CGRF allowed the petition by holding that the appellant is entitled to be classified under LT IV industrial category. Later the appellant’s LT connection was converted into HT connection by enhancing the connected and an agreement in this regard was executed with the respondent on 25-08-2009. The tariff assigned to this HT connection was HT IV commercial. It is alleged that the appellant had submitted vide letter dated 3/2/2017 before the Deputy Chief Engineer requesting to change the tariff wrongly assigned to him. But the officers of the respondent have not taken any action on this request and hence the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, (southern Region), Kottarakkara on 19/05/2018, which was disposed directing the respondent to change the tariff to HT 1 industrial with effect from date of inspection of the respondent. Aggrieved by the Order No. 73/2018 dated 07/08/2018 of CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal before this Authority, requesting to revise all the bills issued to the appellant under HT1 industrial category from the date of giving connection under HT i.e. from 25-08-2009 and to refund the excess amount collected along with interest at bank rate. From the analysis done, the findings and conclusions arrived at which is detailed above, this Authority takes the following decision. The activity or the purpose for which the electrical energy is being used by the appellant has been found as industrial type. Hence the decision of the CGRF to assign HT I A industrial tariff category is found justifiable and is upheld. But the appellant had executed an agreement with the Licensee on 25-08-2009 for getting the supply under commercial category and not raised any objection till he submitted an application dated 3-2-2017 for reassigning the tariff category. Though the appellant claimed that on several occasions the appellant approached respondent with the request of tariff change, he had not produced any supporting evidence to establish this. Considering the above facts, it is decided that the change of tariff of the appellant from HT IV commercial to HT I A industrial shall be given from 3/2/2017 i.e. from the date of application submitted by the appellant. The respondent is directed to adjust the excess charges based on the actual amount remitted and the account of the consumer shall be adjusted within one month of this order with details of calculation for his information. The order of CGRF, Kottarakkara vide order no. 73/2018 dated 07-08-2018 is modified to this extent. 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/078/2018 Smt. Shajina Sajeevan, Kannur
|
|
| The grievance of the appellant is against the erection of a transformer in her property by the respondent without her consent and knowledge which has caused obstruction for construction of building in the property. The appellant also alleges that a coconut tree and cashew tree were cut for the erection of the transformer by the respondent without her consent. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kozhikode, which was disposed with a direction to approach the District Magistrate for redressing the grievance vide order No. OP/7/ 2018-19 dated 14-08-2018. Not satisfied with the order of the Forum, the appellant approached this Authority with this appeal. In view of the above discussions it is hereby directed the respondent to shift the transformer from the present place of the appellant’s property to the alternate place proposed at their risk and cost. The shifting work should be carried out at any rate within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. The order of CGRF in OP No. 7/2018-19 dated 14-08-2018 is set aside. The appeal is admitted. No order as to costs. |
| P/079/2018 Sri. Gangadharan Nair, Kozhikode
|
|
| The service connection bearing consumer No. 6653, under KSEBL Kunnamangalam Section, was originally stand registered in favour of Sri Gangadharan Nair under domestic tariff. The connection was disconnected on 16-09-2017 due to non payment of electricity bill and later reconnected on 22-09-2017 on the strength of balance CD amount at his credit. The appellant again made default in payments and hence disconnected on 16-10-2017 and later dismantled on 02-06-2018. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not issued a notice either through post or in person before dismantling the connection. The appellant aggrieved by this, approached the CGRF, Kozhikode praying for re-effecting the connection. The Forum dismissed the petition vide Order OP No. 49/2018-19 dated 23-08-2018 and directed the respondent to refund Rs.100/-, the reconnection fee realized from the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the CGRF, the consumer has filed the Appeal Petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above and the conclusions arrived at, I take the following decision. The non-remittance of energy charge by the appellant in time is the reason for dismantling, but the dismantling of the service connection was effected without obeying the required procedures as per the Supply Code, 2014. As such both the respondent and the appellant are equally responsible for the present situation. Hence it is decided that 50% of the ECSC charge for the fresh single phase service connection shall be met by the respondent and the remaining portion by the appellant. Application fee and CD for the connection shall also be collected from the appellant. The reconnection fee Rs.100/- realized by the respondent shall be refunded/adjusted. The respondent shall give a new connection within one month from the date of receipt of application from the appellant on complying with the above mentioned decision. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is found having some merits and is allowed to the extent ordered. 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 | 4447 |
 | All | 4878437 |