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/182/2015 The Assistant Vice President Administration, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kottayam. 
|
|
| The appellant is a LT 3 phase consumer with consumer No. 5581 under Electrical Section, Kottayam East. The sanctioned load of the appellant is 69 kW and the tariff allotted is LT VI C. On 27-05-2015 the APTS, Kottayam unit conducted an inspection in the appellant’s premises and detected that the first and second phases i.e. R and Y phases are connected with CT having ratio 200/5 and the third phase i.e. B phase with 100/5 and the assessment was being done with multiplication factor as 20. Based on the site mahazar prepared by the APTS team, a demand notice dated 10-09-2015 for an amount of Rs. 3,13,880.00 was issued for the wrong application of multiplication factor. Aggrieved against this, the appellant approached CGRF (South), Kottarakkara and filed OP No. 1589/2015. The Forum disposed the petition by upholding the above demand. Still aggrieved the appellant filed this appeal before this Authority. In view of the above facts it is hereby ordered that the appellant shall be reassessed as per his average consumption for a period of 3 months after rectifying the defects for the period from 07-06-2014 to 27-05-2015 i.e., the period of wrong application of multiplication factor. This should be done at any rate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. No interest or surcharge need be levied during appeal pending period and up to the date of revised bill ordered now. The appellant may be allowed suitable installments if requested for. 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 as ordered. The related order of CGRF in OP No 1589/2015 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/180/2015 Sri Chandransekharan Nair N , Thiruvanathapuram
|
|
| The appellant is one of the complainants in the OP No. 1511/2015 filed before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (South), Kottarakkara and also a domestic consumer under Electrical Section, Uchakada, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainants in the OP No. 1511/2015 are facing inconvenience due to an overhead electric line passing over their property. The agony and disturbance caused due to the crossing of the electric line over their properties was brought to the notice of the respondents by the appellant and five others and had requested for shifting the said 11 kV line (Pozhiyoor feeder). Accordingly steps were taken to shift the disputed electric line from the existing route and an estimate has been prepared for an amount of Rs. 1,15,015.00. In order to carry out the shifting of 11 kV line from the property to the road side, the existing 11 kV line (Uchakada feeder) drawn through the road is to be shifted to the other side of the road. For carrying out this shifting work some trees are to be cut and removed, but some locals have raised objections against the tree cutting. The appellant and five others have agreed to pay the tree cutting compensation, but still the locals objected. In order to avoid the objections a revised estimate for Rs. 1,72,019.00 was prepared including insertion of A pole. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Parasala had approached the District Magistrate with a request for shifting the line as there is no feasible alternate route for avoiding the property crossing. Accordingly the Additional District Magistrate had issued orders dated 28-10-2014 allowing to shift the electric line as proposed and to cut the trees or branches after giving tree cutting compensation to the concerned. During this time, the Chairman, Neyyanttinkara Taluk Integrated Power Loom Village Industrial Co-operative society Ltd., Uchakada had also raised objection against proposed shifting of the overhead line. Accordingly the matter was again referred to Additional District Magistrate who issued orders dated 31-01-2015 allowing to shift the electric line as proposed after cut and removal of the trees or branches of Smt. Sunaja. Subsequently the respondent issued a letter for arranging cut and removal of trees/ branches of trees and to remit the estimated amount. But the appellant approached the CGRF with a petition requesting to reduce the estimate amount and also to take appropriate action to cut and removal of the trees and to shift the line through a feasible route so as to avoid further inconvenience to the appellant. The Forum in a combined order dated 30-09-2015 in OP No.1511/2015, OP No.1540/2015 and OP No. 1547/2015 held that “the respondent shall arrange the shifting work as per the direction of the Hon’ble Additional District Magistrate.” Not satisfied with the above order, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. Since the matter is still pending before the Additional District Magistrate this Authority feels that it is not proper to intervene the matter at this stage. In this background, respondent is directed to follow up the case and take necessary steps for a speedy disposal of the case in accordance with the directions obtained from the Additional District Magistrate. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. |
| P/181/2015 Smt. Marykutty Thomas, Kottayam.
|
|
| The appellant, Smt. Marykutty Thomas, is a consumer under Electrical Section, Kottayam East with consumer No 17018 under LT IA tariff. On 20-08-2014 the APTS Kottayam unit conducted an inspection in the appellant's premises and detected theft of electricity. Consequent to that a penal bill amounting to Rs. 29,000.00 towards the penalty under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was served on the appellant and the same was remitted. Later, the appellant had filed complaint before the higher officials of the KSEB Limited against the irresponsibility and negligence of the Lineman and Overseer whose action caused accusation of theft of energy and for the remittance of penal charges. The appellant also approached the CGRF by filing a petition for taking appropriate action against the alleged staff of licensee and the Forum in its order dated 18-11-2015 in OP No.1534/2015 held that “This petition is against a particular staff of the licensee, who had committed mistake, which caused grievances to the consumer. The licensee had already taken steps for action. This Forum has no power or jurisdiction to take action against the staff of the licensee, who had committed mistake against the consumer, during the course of his employment. However the Forum directs the licensee to take immediate steps for redressing the grievances of the petitioner with an open mind.” Not satisfied with the above order, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. Without going deep into the merits of the case this Authority is of the view that the respondent had exceeded their powers in booking the case under Section 135 of the Act and in raising the bill for the offence of theft of electricity. The Assessing Officer disposed the appeal even without applying mind to do justice to the appellant. As this Authority have no power or jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the staff of the licensee who have committed dereliction of duties and negligence, it is decided to direct the licensee to take appropriate action against the staff concerned. Also it is directed to review the case of the appellant after applying mind to do justice and to refund the amount collected from the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. |
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 | 4216 |
 | All | 4878206 |