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/028/2018 - Sri. Tomy Njarakulam Ernakulam 
|
|
| The appellant represents, Balanagar Technical Institute, Mookkannoor, Angamaly which was having two numbers of Low Tension electric connections for separate buildings with consumer No.65 under LT-IV and Consumer No. 473 under LT-VI-B with sanctioned load of 52 KW and 45 KW respectively under Electrical Section, Mookkannoor. The appellant is running an educational institution. APTS inspected the premises on 8.2.1999 and alleged that there is additional load of 28 kW in regard to consumer No.65 and alleged that there is unauthorized load of 143 kW to consumer No.473 and thereafter penalty was demanded. The matter was taken up before the Appellate Authority by the appellant and the Authority dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the demands before the Hon. High Court of Kerala vide WP (C) No. 18844 of 2007 and the Court allowed the writ petition fixing the liability only on fixed charges as per judgment dated 22-03-2012. Since the Writ petition was decreed in favor of the appellant, the respondent filed appeal against the judgment and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 29-10-2014 in W.A No.294/2014, filed by the KSEB held that, the regulations issued by the KSEB cannot be applied retrospectively and allowed the writ appeal whereby the liability was fixed both on energy charges and fixed charges. Consequent to the demand notices issued, the appellant again approached the Hon'ble High Court challenging the demand dated 22-06-2015 and the Hon'ble High Court as per judgment dated 09-07-2015 in W.P. (C) No. 20511/2015 held that, the appellant can be saddled with liability only from 29-10-2014 to pay the interest and further directed the appellant to pay the amount in 4 equal monthly installments. The judgment dated 09-07-2015 in W.P.(C)No.20511/ 2015 was challenged before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by the KSEB as W.A.No.1330/2014 and the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed by the KSEB and directed to reconsider the entire matter. Again the appellant filed RP.No.55/2017 against the judgment dated 07-10-2016 in W.A. No.1330/2014 and the Division Bench allowed the review and directed to grant the benefit of the Board Order dated 17-02-2012 to settle the entire liability. Accordingly the respondent issued a demand notice to the appellant, demanding a sum of Rs. 21,13,492/-. The appellant filed an objection against this demand and considering the objection the demand was reduced to Rs. 17,12,123/- by the respondent. There upon the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF, Ernakulam, which was disposed of, by directing the respondent to collect the arrear amount excluding the compounding interest and to allow one time settlement as ordered by the Hon. High Court, vide order No. OP73/2017-18 dated 31-03-2018. Aggrieved by the order of the CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Forum. Since in this case, the grievance has arisen out of the detection of unauthorized load and the penal assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is clear that the petition itself is not maintainable before the CGRF or the Electricity Ombudsman as per the KSERC Regulations. That is any dispute or complaints pertaining to such matters are not maintainable before the CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman, as per Clause 2(1)(f)(vii)(1) of KSERC (CGRF & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005. The Hon High Court of Kerala has also made it clear in the Catholic Reformation Literature Society Vs. KSEB [2011 (1) KHC 457] that, when there is specific provisions in the Act itself, to hear such cases, the same are excluded from the purview of CGRF and hence before the Electricity Ombudsman. Hence I decide that the Appeal Petition filed before this Authority by the appellant is not maintainable. The appellant is free to approach the licensee for a one time settlement or to file an appeal against the final assessment of the Assessing Officer, under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellants’ stands disposed of with the said decisions. No order on costs. |
| P/027/2018 - Smt. Lekshmi T., Kollam
|
|
| The appellant Smt. Lekshmi. T. is running an ENT hospital in the name ‘KERF’ under Electrical Section, Olai bearing Consumer No.7521 under VI G tariff with connected load of 68 KW having a contract demand of 35 kVA. While so, on 05-10-2017, the APTS of KSEBL, Kollam conducted an inspection in the premises and found that the energy used in one phase (out of 3 phases) was not recording in the meter (missing of B phase voltage) and unauthorized additional load to the extent of 45 KW(sanctioned load at the time of inspection was 25 KW). Accordingly, the appellant was served with a provisional short assessment bill, for the failure to measure power of all the three phases due to missing of voltage in B phase from 04/2014 to 10/2017, so as to recover the revenue loss of the unrecorded portion of energy, for Rs. 4,02,475/-. The appellant filed objection before the Assessing officer, the Asst. Engineer, against the said assessment. Hence the provisional assessment was reduced to Rs. 2,04,170/- as the final assessment for the period 11/2015 to 10/2017. Aggrieved against this, the appellant filed Petition vide complaint No.539/2017 before the CGRF,SR, Kottarakkara and the CGRF held that the short assessment bill issued by the respondent for two years from 11/2015 to 10/2017 as per Regulation 152 of Supply Code, 2014 is genuine and sustainable, vide its order dated 05-03-2018. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide to set aside the short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 2,04,170/- issued to the appellant. The respondent is directed to revise the bills for the consumption for the period of 24 months prior to 04/2014 by taking an average consumption of 2820 units i.e. the average consumption of 03/2014, 02/2014 and 01/2014. Accordingly the respondent shall raise a bill for the meter faulty period from 11/2015 to 10/2017, with the difference of (67680–48040) = 19640 units and issue the revised bill to the consumer within fifteen days. The appellant is also eligible for installments, if requested for, and the respondent shall issue the same. The consumer shall pay the whole amount or the 1st installment within 30 days of the revised bill date. The subsequent installments will bear interest from 30th day of the bill issued to the day of payment. No interest or surcharge is payable by the consumer for the Petition and Appeal pending period before the CGRF and this Authority up to 30th day of the revised bill date. 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 539/2017 dated 05-03-2018 is modified to this extent. No order on costs. |
| P/029/2018 Sri. Sadiq P.A. Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant representing the Jewel Riverwoods Flat Owners Association, Aluva approached the Electrical Section, Aluva North for shifting two numbers of electrical posts installed in the flat compound to the private road outside the compound for which the flat owners have 50% ownership. But this was objected by the other owners of the private road and the matter was presented before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) by the respondent. The ADM dismissed the petition after hearing both parties as he found the petition lacks merits. Then the appellant approached the CGRF-CR, Ernakulam by filing a Petition vide No. 88/2017-18 and the CGRF directed the respondent to realign the post and line to the boundary of the property of the appellant after collecting the required charges, vide its order dated 31-03-2018. The respondent has prepared an estimate for shifting the PSC pole and realignment of three phase line on work deposit basis. The work was not done since the shifting will cause damage to the pipelines of the sewage treatment plant of the appellant. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done and conclusions arrived at, I take the following decision. The respondent is directed to prepare an estimate for the drawing of the LT Aerial Bunched Cable (ABC) in the place of existing three phase four wire overhead conductor for two span of line within 15 days from the date of the order and inform the appellant. If the appellant is willing to accept the proposal and to bear the expenditure, the respondent shall carry out the work within one month without changing the location of the existing electric LT poles. The order of CGRF in OP No. 88/2017-18 dated 31-03-2018 is set aside. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order as to 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 | 189 |
 | All | 4878958 |