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/031/2016 Sri T.S. Murali Kottayam 
|
|
| The appellant, Sri T.S. Murali had submitted an application to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Chempu and also to the Chief Minister of Kerala for shifting the single phase line passing through the middle of his property so as to construct a new building. The Assistant Engineer inspected the site and found that shifting of line from the appellant’s property is not technically feasible and hence proposed to be shifted through the nearby private road. According to the respondent, since the road is owned by 10 individuals, consent from all of them is required. As the appellant is not in a position to obtain consent from the property owners he approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara with a complaint. The CGRF disposed of the petition directing the respondent to shift the overhead line through the feasible private road, on production of the consent from the owners of the private road. Also it is directed the appellant to remit the labour charges for the shifting work as estimated by the respondent. Not satisfied with the above decision of the CGRF, the appellant submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the discussions it is proved that the beneficiary, Sri Noushad had a right to draw the line to his residence through an alternate route which is owned by himself and 8 others. Hence the request of the appellant is to shift the overhead line drawn through his property, for giving connection to Sri Noushad can be entertained by the respondent if it is found feasible. In the above circumstances, the respondent is directed to issue notice to Sri Noushad and take necessary steps for shifting the overhead line from the appellant’s property observing Regulation 95 of Supply Code, 2014 and provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF in OP No. 24/2016 dated 13-04-2016 is modified to the extent as ordered above. No order as to costs. |
| P/29/2016 The Secretary, Rama Varma Union Clu, Kottayam
|
|
| The appellant, the Secretary of Rama Varma Union Club of Kottayam is a consumer having 3 service connections (3 phase) with the following consumer numbers, tariff and connected load under Electrical Section, Kottayam. 1. Consumer No. 10545 LT VII A 28.70 kW 2. Consumer No. 11437 LT VII A 10.06 kW 3. Consumer No. 11438 LT VII C 21.56 kW On 05-10-2015, APTS team inspected the premises and detected that the service connection with consumer No. 11438 issued under VII C tariff is being used for commercial purposes (VII A). Based on the above findings the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottayam Central issued a short assessment bill dated 09-10-2015 for Rs. 96,968.00 alleging misuse of tariff. Aggrieved against this, the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF, Kottarakkara. The Forum dismissed the petition vide order No. 1644/2015 dated 31-03-2016 upholding the issue of short assessment bill dated 9-10-2015 amounting to Rs. 96,968.00 for a period of one year as per Regulation 152 (3) of Electricity Supply Code 2014 is legal and sustainable. Against the decisions of the CGRF, the appellant has approached this Authority with this appeal petition. In view of the above discussions it is concluded that the appellant is hereby directed to avail single point supply as per Regulation 52 of the Supply Code, 2014 and the respondent shall take immediate action on the application made by the appellant in this regard. The respondent is also directed to issue bill for Rs. 96,968.00 to the appellant and 30 days shall be given for making the payment. Installment facilities, if any, requested by the appellant shall be given as per Regulation 135 of Supply Code, 2014. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF in OP No. 1644/2015 is modified to the extent as ordered above. No order as to costs. |
| REVIEW PETITION No. P/026/2016 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punalur.
|
|
| The review petitioner, the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSE Board Ltd, Electrical Sub Division, Punalur has filed this review petition against the orders issued by this Authority in appeal petition No. P/026/2016 dated 20-07-2016. The grievance of the appellant in the above appeal petition is that the licensee has erected an electric post in his property without his consent and hence he approached the licensee for shifting the same. But the licensee directed the appellant to remit an amount of Rs. 6,766.00 towards the labour charges for shifting the electric post. Instead of remitting the amount the appellant approached CGRF, (Kottarakkara) with a complaint and the Forum disposed of the petition vide order in OP No. 1657/2015 dated 11-03-2016. Aggrieved against the order of CGRF, the review respondent has submitted an appeal petition before this Authority which is serially numbered as P/026/2016. The appeal petition was disposed of having allowed the plea of the appellant to the extent as it was ordered. Now the review petitioner has submitted that a factual error occurred in the order No. P/026/2016 dated 20-07-2016 issued by this Authority and therefore requested to review the order and to dismiss the said appeal petition. This Authority has analyzed all the facts and circumstances of the case before taking the decision and held to shift the electric post erected without the consent of the review respondent. Also it is directed the review petitioner to shift the line drawn without maintaining statutory clearances with due consideration of safety aspects. The review petitioner had not raised any of these points or aspects which are not brought to the notice of this Authority before arriving at the decisions sought to be reviewed. The review jurisdiction is limited to rectify a mistake or error which is apparent on the face of records and it cannot be used appellate jurisdiction. The arguments now raised cannot be considered for a review as it was considered, decided and order issued accordingly. Hence there is no cause of sufficient reason established by the review petitioner for a review of the order already issued. In view of the above discussions I hold that the review petition is not maintainable and 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 | 82 |
 | All | 4878851 |