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/002/2016 Sri. C.V. Rangarajan Palakkad 
|
|
| The appellant runs a company named 'Sapthagiri Refineries' under Electrical Section, Kozhinjampara, having an LT Three Phase connection with Consumer No. 12380 under LT IV A tariff. Consequent to an inspection conducted by the APTS team in the premises of the appellant on 10-09-2015 found that the appellant’s unit is carrying out filtering and packing and associated activities using extracted oil brought from outside. As per the tariff order the units carrying out filtering and packing and other associated activities using extracted oil brought from outside are classified under LT VII A tariff. Based on the above findings tariff of the appellant was changed from LT IV A to LT VII A and issued a short assessment bill for an amount of Rs.7,27,836.00. Aggrieved against this, the appellant approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (Northern Region), Kozhikode by filing a complaint No. 77/2015-16 which was dismissed vide order dated 07-12-2015. Not satisfied with the above decisions of CGRF the appellant approached this Authority with this appeal petition. If a portion of manufacturing process is involved in a unit, such units cannot be treated as a commercial one. Hence there is no justification in reassigning the tariff of the appellant to commercial on the arguments that tariff order says that units carrying out filtering and packing and other associated activities using extracted oil brought from outside are included in commercial tariff. The respondent is directed to reassign the tariff to industrial and short assessment bill issued for Rs. 7,27,836.00 is quashed. Appeal petition is admitted and order of CGRF is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/009/2016 Mother Superior, Nirmala Bhavan Convent, Palakkad
|
|
| The appellant is a three phase consumer having consumer number 6403 under Electrical Section, Nenmara. The appellant was issued with an additional bill dated 17-8-2015 for Rs. 26,100.00 being the loss incurred to the respondent, KSEB Limited due to the error occurred in the calculation of actual connected load for the period from 7/2008 to 9/2015. Aggrieved against this bill, the appellant approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (Northern Region), Kozhikode by filing a complaint No. 80/2015-16 which was disposed of vide order dated 21-12-2015. The Forum held that “The bill amount of Rs. 26,100.00 is found to be demanded in compliance to Regulation 134 (1) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 and hence holds good”. Still aggrieved with the above decision of CGRF the appellant has approached this Authority with this appeal petition. There is no justification for issuing such a huge short assessment for a period of 87 months as long as the appellant had not done anything illegal, it is decided to limit the short assessment for a maximum period of 24 months as per Regulation 152 of Supply Code, 2014. Short assessment bill issued for Rs. 26,100.00 is hereby quashed. Appeal petition is allowed. CGRF Order No. 87/2015-16 dated 21-12-2015 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/001/2016 Sri Kurian Varghese M/S Met-Rolla Steels (P) Ltd., Ernakulam.
|
|
| The appellant, M/s Met-Rolla Steels Limited is a High Tension consumer with consumer code No HTB-24/3267, having a Contract Demand of 2500 kVA, under Electrical Section, Velloorkunnam. It is a medium heavy industrial unit engaged in manufacturing of steel ingots and rolled steel products and started commercial production in the unit in the year 1996. The entire production of the factory came to a block due to a major plant and machinery breakdown on 24-01-2015. It is alleged that the production could only be resumed on 02-04-2015 after completing the repair works and the appellant is entitled to get waiver of minimum demand charges for the closed period of February 2015 and March 2015 as per Clause 16 (b) of HT agreement conditions. But the respondent issued demand for the 75% of the contract demand as per differential pricing system with the aid of ToD meter as per the revised tariff order and based on the relevant Regulation in the Supply Code, 2014. Against the issuance of invoices for the month of February 2015 and March 2015, the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by filing W.P. (C) No. 11840/2015 and the Hon’ble Court directed the Special Officer (Revenue) to consider the representation filed by the appellant. Pursuant to this, the Special Officer (Revenue) passed an order on 28-07-2015 rejecting the claim of the appellant. Challenging this, the appellant approached the Hon'ble CGRF Ernakulam requesting to set aside the impugned order and also prayed for a direction to refund/adjust the minimum demand remitted by the appellant for the months of 2/2015 and 3/2015. The CGRF, Ernakulam, vide order in OP No. 70/2015-16 dated 27-11-2015, disposed of the petition holding the demand issued by the respondent is valid. Against the decisions of the CGRF, the appellant has approached this Authority with this appeal petition. As there is no valid agreement between the licensee and the appellant in tune with the model agreement annexed to Supply Code, 2014. the demand raised against the appellant for the month of February and March 2014 is not sustainable and hence quashed. The appeal petition is admitted. CGRF order dated 27-11-2015 is set aside. 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 | 4206 |
 | All | 4878196 |