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/023/2016 Sri. P. Yoosaf, Palakkad. 
|
|
| The appellant is an industrial consumer having consumer number 6662 under Electrical Section, Pulamanthole in Malappuram District. The appellant has requested enhancement of his connected load to 71 kW and accordingly capacity of existing transformer enhanced to 160 kVA after sanctioning OYEC instalment scheme. He had remitted 10% of the transformer cost amounting to Rs. 43,390.00 and the balance was being levied from him on monthly basis. According to the appellant he had remitted an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs approximately towards the cost of transformer in excess of the actual expenditure incurred for installation of transformer. Hence the appellant preferred a petition before the CGRF with a plea to refund the excess amount remitted which was not allowed by the Forum in its order OP No.106/2015-16 dated 02-03-2016. Against the above order of CGRF, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. Though the appellant claimed that he remitted an amount of Rs. 3,00,000.00 approximately towards the charges for the enhancement of transformer, he failed to produce the remittance details such as copy of monthly bills issued and its remittances or any other documents to prove his arguments. Hence this Authority is not in a position to verify the genuineness of the argument put forward by the appellant. Since the appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove his claim of excess remittance, I do not find any reason to intervene in the matter at this stage In view of the above it can be seen that the appellant submitted the appeal without furnishing any reason or explanation or even without any documents to prove his argument of excess remittances. In this background the appeal petition is found not sustainable and hence dismissed. The order of CGRF in OP No. 106/2015-16 dated 02-03-2016 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
| P/022/2016 Smt. Pathumma Malappuram
|
|
| The appellant, Smt. Pathumma, is an applicant of electric connection for her newly constructed house under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Venniyoor. She applied for electric connection after remitting Rs. 50.00 as application fee and Rs. 100.00 as processing fee on 09-10-2015. But the respondent denied her request alleging that the premises requires for new service connection was detected for theft of electricity and subsequently issued penal charges for an amount of Rs. 46,180.00 as per Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. According to the respondent as there is a case pending against the appellant in connection with theft of electricity and an amount of Rs. 46,180.00 is still pending towards the penalty, the service connection could not be given to the appellant. Aggrieved against the stand taken against the issuance of new service connection by the respondent, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kozhikode, with a petition. But the CGRF disposed of the petition vide order in OP No.108/2015-2016 dated 02-03-2016 with the following decisions: 1. The respondents shall effect supply to the petitioner, premise, only after the petitioner remits Rs. 46,180.00 and on proper application, as per existing statutes. 2. The petitioner will be eligible to claim refund for the above amount if and only if he is acquitted by the lawful authority from theft charges. 3. The respondents shall strictly comply with Regulation 160 sub regulation (7) to (10), while effecting supply. 4. Petition allowed accordingly. Not satisfied with the above decisions of CGRF, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above discussions the respondent is directed to issue service connection to the new building after complying with all the formalities and after realization of the penal bill for Rs. 46,180.00. I am not making any opinion regarding the criminal case registered against Sri Abdul Salam as per Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 since the matter is pending before the competent Judicial Forum. The appeal petition is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF in OP No.108/2015-2016 dated 02-03-2016 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
| P/025/2016 - Sri. P.M. Varkey, Ernakulam 683104.
|
|
| Sri Ajith George Thomas is the registered owner of the domestic connection with consumer No. 7746 having a connected load of 3 kW and an agricultural connection with consumer No. 6757 having a connected load of 4 kW, under Electrical Section, Mangalapuram. The appellant, Sri P.M. Varkey is the power of attorney holder of Sri Ajith George Thomas. As per the request of the appellant the agricultural connection in the premises was disconnected on 17-05-2013. On 30-04-2015, the appellant had submitted an application before the Assistant Engineer, Mangalapuram to disconnect the service connection in the premises with consumer No. 7746. Accordingly the Assistant Engineer inspected the premises on 11-05-2015 and found that the service connection is given to a three storied building which is occupied by one Sri Deepu and his family. The present consumer is paying the current charges regularly and no arrears are pending. The respondent has informed the appellant that the request for disconnecting the service could not be effected without the concurrence of the occupier of the premises who is the present user of electricity. So the appellant approached the CGRF seeking orders to disconnect the service connection. But the Forum dismissed the petition due to lack of merits and maintainability. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF in OP No. 1665/2015 dated 11-03-2016, the appellant has submitted this Appeal petition. In view of the discussions, it is clear that the dispute as to the legality of the present occupant is not finalized and the Hon’ble High Court in OP (C) No. 911/2016 dated 06-04-2016 directed the Munsiff Court to rehear and to pass appropriate orders. In the result the appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that in the event of the appellant succeeding his case in the Civil Court, the appellant is free to approach this Authority or any other appropriate Forum for the reliefs claimed in this appeal, if he desires so. The order of CGRF in OP No. 1665/2015 is upheld. 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 | 102 |
 | All | 4878871 |