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/008/2016 Sri Alfred David, Chalakkudy - 680683 
|
|
| The appellant is a consumer and is having 7 single phase service connections with Consumer Nos. 30720, 30721, 30722, 30723, 30724, 30725 and 30726, under Electrical Section, Chalakkudy. Each connection has a connected load of 990 watts and the tariff allotted was domestic LT‐I A. The tariff was changed from LT I A to LT VII A ‐ commercial, on the basis of an inspection conducted by the APTS in the premises on 25-04-2015. During the inspection it is found that the premise is being used as lodging purpose for the labourers, which comes under commercial category. Against the tariff change from domestic to commercial category and the issuance of short assessment bill, the appellant filed a petition before the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Chalakkudy who afforded an opportunity to hear the appellant and thereafter issued final bills confirming the provisional bills. Against the above decision, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Ernakulum, requesting for restoration of tariff back to LT I A category. But the Forum dismissed the petition holding that “the Forum has no jurisdiction in the subject matter”. Not satisfied with the decision of the Forum the appellant filed this Appeal Petition. It is evident that though the appellant availed separate service connection to the line room, failed to establish that each room is provided with separate kitchen or similar amenities necessary for a residential building. Hence the change of category of tariff from domestic to commercial is found in order. The appeal is admitted to the extent ordered above. The order of CGRF in OP No. 109/2015-16 dated 16-02-2016 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/007/2016 Sri Kunhabdulla, Kozhikode
|
|
| The appellant had availed single phase connection with consumer number 2389 under Electrical Section, Vatakara North on 01-03-1996 which was converted to 3 phase in April 1998. The appellant was served with an arrear bill for Rs. 37,160.00 being the charges for the excess energy consumed during the period from 1/1997 to 9/1999. Against this bill the appellant had filed an Original Suit No. 66/2000 before the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Vatakara which was decreed in favour of the appellant. Hence the respondent filed an appeal petition (AS No. 18/2001) before the Sub Court, Vatakara. The respondent’s contention is that the Hon’ble Sub Court in its judgment dated 20-10-2004 was pleased to allow the appeal partly with the observation that the respondent’s right to realize the additional electricity charges for the excess consumption of 1774 units from May 1998 to September 1999 would not be prejudiced by the decree of Hon’ble Munsiff Court, Vatakara in OS No. 66/2000. The appellant’s contention is that the respondent issued demand notice for Rs. 5,82,106.00 without denoting the period of arrears and with threat of disconnection on 03-07-2014. The appellant stated that he deposited the amount towards the current charges for and on behalf of respondent in the Court as per the order of Hon’ble Sub Court, Vatakara in AS No. 18/2001. Aggrieved against the above demand, the appellant submitted a petition before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kozhikode which was dismissed vide order in OP No. 94/2015‐16 dated 29-12-2015 holding that the demand notice issued to the appellant for Rs. 6,00,200.00 dated 19-11-2014 is in compliance of Section 45 of Electricity Act, 2003 and to the Regulation 131 of Supply Code, 2014 and the decision of Hon’ble High Court in WP (C) No. 90 of 2009 and hence in order. Not satisfied with the above order, the appellant has filed this appeal petition. The appellant can be exonerated from the liability for payment of surcharge up to the date of issue of arrears notice dated 19-11-2014. Respondent is directed to issue revised demand for the arrears along with surcharge with effect from 19-11-2014. Appeal petition is admitted. Order of CGRF in OP No. 94/2015-16 dated 29-12-2015 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/127/2015 The Assistant Secretary Thrissur Corporation,
|
|
| The review petitioner is the respondent in the appeal petition in P/127/2015 before this Authority and the review respondent is a registered consumer with consumer no. 8459 C under the electricity distribution licensee, Thrissur Corporation. He was issued with a demand notice dated 06-04-1998 amounting to Rs. 23,00,552.70 towards arrears of electricity charges relating to the period from 10/1994 to 02/1998. The said demand was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by the review respondent in various Petitions and Writ Appeals viz. OP (C) No. 9332/1998, OP No. 19756/1998, Writ Appeal No. 51/2009, W.P. (C) 25010/2012 and W.P. (C) No. 7129/2015. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, in W.P (C) 7129/2015, directed the review respondent to approach the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly the review respondent filed a petition before the CGRF which was disposed by ordering therein that the review respondent is entitled only for One Time Settlement and that he has to pay penal interest at the rate of 6%. Based on the order, a demand notice was issued by the review petitioner for an amount of Rs. 6,58,447.00 as penal interest. Against the above order of the Forum, the review respondent filed this appeal before this Authority. Since the appeal petition filed is found having some merits, an order was issued by this Authority and allowed the appeal by quashing the order of CGRF, vide order No. P/127/2015 dated 29-12-2015. Against the above order, the review petitioner has approached this Authority with a plea to review the decision taken on the appeal petition. In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal petition. The review jurisdiction is limited to rectify a mistake or an error which is apparent on the face of records and it cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction. In view of the above discussions I hold that the review petition is found devoid of merits and not maintainable, hence rejected. |
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 | 88 |
 | All | 4878857 |