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/037/2016 Smt. Annie Jose, Thrissur. 
|
|
| The appellant, Smt. Annie Jose, is an industrial consumer having consumer number 2507 under Electrical Section, Parappukara. The appellant was issued a short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 2,26,410.00 for the period from 10/2013 to 11/2014 based on the audit report of the Regional Audit Officer, Irinjalakkuda, alleging that the contract demand of the appellant has exceeded 100 kVA. One time relaxation was given to consumers genuinely requiring a contract demand exceeding 100 kVA for continuing under LT connection, subject to the condition that contract demand declared shall not exceed the present connected load, i.e. load based on which billing was done during November 2012 and that such consumer had connected load above 100 kVA prior to implementation of Supply Code, 2015. The appellant’s registered contract demand was 112 kVA. In the audit it was found that the recorded maximum demand of the appellant during the month of 10/2013 was 113 kVA. Since the eligibility of one time relaxation was lost, the appellant was billed under High Tension category and accordingly the short assessment bill issued. Aggrieved against the bill, the appellant filed petition before the CGRF, Ernakulam vide Petition No. 143/2015-16. The Forum vide order dated 10-05-2016, directed the respondent to limit the period of assessment for 24 months. Not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. In the above circumstances it is decided to quash the short assessment bill issued for Rs. 1,68,431.00. The respondent is directed to issue revised bill treating the appellant as deemed HT consumer with effect from 06/2014 onwards based on the Schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions issued by KSERC. The order of CGRF-CR/Comp/143/2015-16/73 dated 10-05-2016 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/043/2016 Smt. Anita Poulose, Ernakulam.
|
|
| The appellant, Smt. Anita Poulose, had purchased a property with a service connection having consumer No. 4661 under Electrical Section, Parakkadavu. The above mentioned service connection was registered in favour of one Mr. Sreekumar. O., Edappally, Moozhikulam, Kurumassery P.O. The appellant and her husband are the present occupants of the property and were paying electricity charges up to 09/2014. Since the appellant failed to remit the electricity charges for the month of 11/2014 the respondent disconnected the supply on 18-12-2014 and later dismantled on 17-04-2015. The appellant alleged that the service connection was disconnected and later dismantled by the respondent without any notice. Hence the appellant requested for restoration of supply, but the respondent denied the request and directed to take a new service connection. Aggrieved against the non restoration of supply, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF which was disposed in favour of respondent. Not satisfied with the decision of CGRF, the appellant has filed the appeal petition If the appellant desires to have a service connection to her premises she can apply for the same as a fresh applicant after complying with the formalities required. If the appellant is making such an application then the respondent is directed to issue a new service connection to the appellant after observing the formalities without any delay. The order of CGRF-CR/Comp/7/2016-17/101 dated 02-06-2016 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
| P/042/2016 Sri. John Vilangadan Kochi 24.
|
|
| The appellant, Sri John Vilangadan, is a commercial consumer with consumer No. 26286 under Electrical Section, Palarivattom, who is aggrieved by the exorbitant electricity bill issued to him on 16-03-2016 for an amount of Rs. 69,475.00. So, the appellant approached the Assistant Engineer with a complaint on 30-03-2016 regarding the excess reading of the meter and the impugned bill. Accordingly, the respondent verified the correctness of the meter by installing a Check meter in the premises of the appellant. During verification, no variations or discrepancies were noticed in the existing meter. Hence the respondent directed the appellant to remit the bill amount. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Ernakulam and the Forum disposed of the petition vide order no. CGRF‐CR/Comp.06/2016-17/100 dated 02-06-2016 with a finding that the bill dated 06-03-2016 issued to the appellant is in order. Against the decision of the Forum, the appellant has filed the Appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above discussions, there is no justification for issuing such a huge bill to the appellant even without analyzing or finding out the exact reason for the excess consumption. Hence the disputed bill is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to issue revised bill based on average consumption for the period preceding the date of the bill challenged before this Authority. The order of CGRF is set aside. The appeal petition is allowed. 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 | 332 |
 | All | 4879101 |