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/07/2018 IN APPEAL PETITION No. P/036/2018 Sri. Aneesh Chandran Kollam 
|
|
| The appellant had filed an appeal petition number P/036/2018 before this Authority, being aggrieved at the inaction of KSEBL to shift the transformer erected in front of his property situated under Electrical Section, Thevalakkara. The appellant alleges that due to the installation of transformer, he finds difficulty to enter the property. Though the appellant had approached the officers of KSEBL and District Collector for shifting the transformer, his grievance is not yet settled. The appellant has filed petition before the CGRF, Kottarakkara vide Petition No. OP No. 31/2018 and the CGRF has dismissed it by order dated 14-05-2018, as a case on same subject matter is pending before the District Collector. The Appeal petition was disposed of by upholding the orders issued by the CGRF, vide order dated 20-08-2018. No glaring mistake or apparent errors on the face of record, on the order dated 20-08-2018 of this Authority, in Appeal Petition No. P/036/2018, were pointed out by the appellant here. 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. In view of the above discussions, I hold that review petition is not maintainable as this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued. Hence the review petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. |
| P/076/2018 Sri. Malakkal Sreekumar, Thiruvananthapuram
|
|
| The appellant approached the CGRF with a complaint seeking immediate steps to shift a transformer from the existing position by the respondent so as to avoid accidents. But the Forum found that the disputed transformer was erected three metre away from the public road and such a way that there was no obstruction to movement of men and material and general public and also held that the petition is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, vide OP NO.81/2018 dated 14-08-2018. Against the order of the CGRF, the appellant filed this 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 in No. 81/2018 dated 14-08-2018 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
| P/072/2018 Sri. Manmathan Nair S, Alappuzha
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Manmathan Nair S. is having electricity service connection with consumer number 1145686013938 under Electrical Section, Krishnapuram. The service connection was effected on 25/08/1997 in single phase for domestic purpose with connected load 150 watts. According to the appellant, his average bimonthly consumption was around 190 units only. Being so, he was served with an exorbitant bill for an amount of Rs. 1596.00 alleging that the average bimonthly consumption is 350 units. The appellant approached the CGRF, Ernakulam with a complaint to refund the excess amount collected from him. But the CGRF has quashed the impugned bill and directed the respondent to revise the bill during the month of 12/2017 based on the average of 285 units, vide order No. CGRF–CR/Comp.07/2018-19 dated 31-07-2018. Still aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above and the conclusions arrived at, I take the following decision. In view of the factual position I don’t find any reason to interfere with the findings and decision taken by the CGRF, Ernakulam in this case and hence the order of CGRF No. CGRF–CR/Comp.07/2018-19 dated 31-07-2018 is upheld. The appeal is found devoid of any merits and hence dismissed. 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 | 4447 |
 | All | 4878438 |