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/078/2014 - Sri O.N. Janardhanan,Kozhikode 
|
|
| The appellant is a consumer having consumer No. 5244 with LT IV tariff under Electrical Section, Nadakkavu, Kozhikode. He has been running an industry, M/s National Diesels for the last 32 years. Meanwhile he was served with a bill dated 31-03-2014 for Rs. 12,210.00 based on an inspection conducted by the Division Squad on 22-03-2014. It was alleged by the respondents that they had found a small counter where telephone recharge coupons had been sold. This counter was not connected to the power systems of the licensee. There was no additional load detected by the licensee. A site mahazar was prepared by the Sub Engineer of the KSEB. Subsequently the appellant approached the CGRF seeking to direct the respondents to quash the bill and to change the tariff to previous LT IV A. The Forum, in its order directed the respondents to reassign LT IV tariff to the appellant from 11/2014 onwards. The Forum also directed the respondents to maintain good consumer friendly relationship. But the Forum made no orders for quashing the bill issued by the respondents. Aggrieved against this order this appeal petition was filed. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs.12,210.00 within a period of 30 days. |
| P/091/2015 - Sri Muralidharan Pillai, Punalur
|
|
| The appellant applied for change of ownership in respect of a building which he purchased by the sale deed dated: 16-02-2011 from Sri Rajan Kunju and Sri Pradeep Kumar. But, due to the objections filed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, the service connection was not transferred in the appellant’s name. The appellant approached the CGRF seeking for transfer of ownership of the service connection in his name since he submitted all the requisite documents for change of ownership. According to the respondent, the change of ownership is not registered due to the dispute over the title and ownership of the property. After hearing both parties the Forum found that there was no fault or purposeful delay on the part of the respondent in transferring service connection, since there were series of litigation regarding the ownership of the building. At the same time the Forum was of the view that the right of the appellant herein for electric supply could not be delayed in the event of producing satisfactory proof of his ownership over the building. The CGRF, therefore, disposed of the petition directing the appellant herein to pursue his application for service connection on finalisation of the pending dispute regarding the ownership of the property. Aggrieved against the said order this appeal petition was filed. Respondent is directed to transfer the ownership within a period of 15 days on receipt of application along with required documents. |
| P/079/2014 - Sri A.N. Neelakandan, Kochi
|
|
| The appellant is Cochin Shipyard doing the business of ship manufacturing and repair works. The appellant had taken possession of workshop and dry dock facilities of Cochin Port Trust at Willington Island on lease for a period of 30 years with effect from 12th April 2013, where the respondent is the power distribution licensee. Accordingly supply of electricity was given to the appellant at 11 kV system for a contract demand of 630 kVA and subsequently quantum of power was reduced to 350 kVA on executing the HT Agreement as per the relevant Supply Code. The tariff of the said HT supply was assigned as HT IV commercial. According to the appellant, it had requested for change of tariff from HT IV to HT I industrial at the time of executing the agreement. Since the respondent had reluctance to change the said connection to HT I industrial, the appellant had been compelled to agree the tariff under HT IV as assigned by the respondent. In these circumstances the appellant approached the CGRF seeking to direct the licensee to change the tariff to HT I industrial. A hearing was conducted on 30-10-2014 in the chamber of Chairperson, CGRF, where both parties were heard. The CGRF was of the view that there was no merit in the petition filed by the appellant before it. Hence the petition was dismissed. Against the said order this appeal petition was filed. Respondent is directed to reclassify the tariff on receipt of application from the appellant. |
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 | 1107 |
 | All | 4875097 |