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/071/2018 Smt. Sreekala Mohan, Kollam 
|
|
| The grievance of the appellant is against the shifting of an11 kV electric pole to her property by the respondent which stood outside of compound wall of her property, without any consent. She alleges that the electric pole was shifted to her property without her consent and knowledge which has caused damage to her property and make obstruction for construction of building in the property. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kottarakkara, which was dismissed vide order No. OP/56/ 2018 dated 16-07-2018. Not satisfied with the order of the Forum, the appellant approached this Authority with this appeal. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I take the following decision. 1. The shifting of the 11 metre ‘A’ pole to the road side will reduce the vertical clearance of the 11 kV line between the poles erected on either portions of the existing disputed pole. This may create complaints from other affected parties. The main grievance of the appellant is the erection of said pole in her property without her consent or knowledge. As such it will be better to approach the District Magistrate by the appellant for the remedy, if she desires, since the other property owners are objecting the shifting which cause the reduction of vertical clearance of the 11 kV line resulting safety problems. 2. The respondent shall refund the application fee subject to the decision, if any, of the District Magistrate. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The order of CGRF, Kottarakkara in Petition No. OP/56/2018/dated 16-07-2018 is modified to this extent. No order on costs. |
| P/070/2018 Sri. K.P. Davis ,Thrissur.
|
|
| The appellant is a commercial consumer under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section Venkidangu having Consumer No B.438 and B.402. The service connection having Consumer No B.402 was dismantled years back. The appellant was given an additional bill of excess consumption for Rs.2335 for the year pertains 1998-99. Another complaint of the appellant is that the respondent has not paid the refund of security deposit on dismantling the connection no. B402. The appellant approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum with a prayer lo refund of the excess amount collected on Consumer No B.438 and security deposit on the dismantled con No B.402 with interest and compensation. The Forum dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction, vide order dated 30-06-2018. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above, this Authority have reached to the conclusion that in the light by the provision under Clause 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 and relief, the Appeal Petition filed by Sri. Davis, the appellant, regarding the request for refund of Rs. 2,335/- towards electricity charges collected during the period from 03/98 to 03/99 on consumer number B438 need no further action at this Authority and hence stands dismissed. Another request of the appellant is the refund of the security deposit of consumer number B402. The appellant produced a copy of a receipt vide No.39 dated 12-02-2004 pertains to consumer number B402 for Rs. 80/- towards the bimonthly energy charge. The service was dismantled on 16-06-2005. The appellant’s claim for refund of security deposit is not challenged by the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent shall take up the matter of security deposit to the higher authorities of the Licensee on the strength of the receipt and to refund a reasonable deposit with interest from the date of dismantling, since no records available with the respondent. 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 this extent. The order of CGRF, Central Region in Petition No. OP/146/2017-18/dated 30-06-2018 is modified to this extent. No order on costs. |
| P/068/2018 Sri. Athikkal Muhammed, Malappuram
|
|
| The appellant is an industrial consumer with consumer No. 4235 under Electrical Section, Edavanna having a connected load of 75 kW. The Audit team of Regional Audit Officer, Manjeri conducted an inspection during the month of November 2015 and found that the consumer was issued with undercharged bills from 10/2013 to 08/2015. Accordingly the appellant was issued with a short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 60,091/- (Rupees sixty thousand and ninety one only). Aggrieved by this, the appellant had approached the Hon’ble CGRF (NR) by filing a petition in OP No. 06/2016-17. The Forum quashed the short assessment bill for Rs. 60,091/- and directed the respondent to issue short assessment bill in compliance with Regulation 134 of KESC 2014 for ToD energy charges, demand charges, electricity duty and meter rent as per the readings recorded in the office register. The respondent had filed a review petition before the CGRF requesting to review the order dated 30-06-2016 issued in OP No. 06/2016-17. It is submitted by the respondent that the Forum erred and failed to see the power factor incentive/disincentive has been introduced by the licensee from 01-09-2013 based on the order of the Regulatory Commission published in Kerala Gazette dated 9th September 2013 and it is constructive notice and hence a separate notice is not mandatory. The Forum allowed the review petition vide order dated 31-03-2017 in review petition no. 07/2016-17. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted an appeal petition No. P/084/2017 before this Authority which was disposed of by setting aside the order dated 31-03-2017 of CGRF and by quashing the short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 60,091/- and also directed the respondent to revise the short assessment bill by deducting the incentive/disincentive from the calculation statement and to issue the revised bill to the appellant. Accordingly the respondent had issued another revised short assessment bill for Rs. 53843/-. The appellant challenged this revised bill by filing W.P. (c) No. 41936 of 2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon. Court directed the appellant to submit application before the competent statutory authority. So the appellant again approached the CGRF (NR) by filing a petition in OP No. 181/2017-18. The Forum found that the revised bill for Rs. 18,533/- issued to the appellant on 27-11-2017 is in order and hence rejected the petition. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition No. P/068/2018 before this Authority. The only dispute pertains in this appeal petition is the methodology of calculation of the revised bill issued to the appellant. As directed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala, the CGRF, Northern Region have discussed the subject in detail and found that the revised bill for Rs. 18533/- issued on 27-11-2017 is in order and they decided to dispose of the case. This Authority examined the revised bill and found that (1) Billing demand shall be the recorded maximum demand for the month in kVA or 75% of the contract demand whichever is higher. In this case the demand charge was not billed earlier for 75% of the contract demand. Hence the billing demand of the appellant shall be 75% of the contract demand, which is the minimum to be paid by the appellant, even if the actual demand is below of the contract demand. Since the appellant objects the calculation, the respondent shall once again verify the demand raised for Demand Charge (DC), Electricity Charge (EC), Electricity Duty (ED) and Meter Rent (MR) and confirm the correctness. (2) The respondent shall ascertain the correctness of the amount paid by the appellant in each month from 10/2013 to 08/32015. (3) The revised demand for power factor (PF) need not be taken for the final demand, as ordered earlier by this Authority in Appeal No.084/2017 dated 27/10/2017. The respondent shall prepare the demand from 10/2013 to 08/2015 excluding the incentive/disincentive completely (i.e. Rs.6266/- calculated). So the revised demand shall include only the Demand Charge (DC), Electricity Charge (EC), Electricity Duty (ED) and Meter Rent (MR) for the period from 10/2013 to 08/2015. The respondent is directed to revise the bill for the entire period from 10/2013 to 08/2015 and generate bill for arrear or excess charges based on the actual amount remitted and the account of the consumer shall be realized/adjusted within one month of this order with details of calculation for his information. The respondent shall refund/adjust the excess amount, if any, remitted by the appellant or collect the short assessed amount if any, being the amount of difference of the revised amount and amount remitted. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The order of CGRF, Kozhikode in OP No.181/2017-18 dated 09-07-2018 is set aside. In view of what is stated above, the aforesaid Appeal Petition filed by Sri. Athikkal Muhammed stands disposed of. |
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 | 4448 |
 | All | 4878438 |