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/47/2016 Smt. T.P. Radha, North Paravur, Ernakulam 
|
|
| The appellant, Smt. T.P. Radha, is a domestic consumer with consumer No. 1372 under Electrical Section, Cherai. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent issued an exorbitant bill amounting to Rs. 23,372.00 on 23-10-2015 for a bimonthly consumption of 2829 units. The appellant approached the respondent with a complaint against the impugned bill. But the respondent stated that they have checked the accuracy of the meter and no variations or discrepancies were noticed during the testing of the existing meter. Accordingly the respondent directed the appellant to remit the bill amount. Being aggrieved against the direction, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Ernakulam and the Forum disposed of the petition vide order no. CGRF‐CR/Comp.121/2015-16/124 dated 14-06-2016 with a finding that the bill dated 23-10-2015 issued to the appellant is in order. Not satisfied with the above decision of the Forum, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. The assessment made in this case is without conducting any testing of the meter in an accredited lab or even without verifying the statutory mandates mentioned above. So the assessment is arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable before law and is hereby quashed. However, the respondent is directed to revise the bill for the month of 04/2015 based on the previous average consumption. This shall be done at any rate within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. If the appellant desires to have a new service connection to her premises she can apply for the same as a fresh applicant after complying with the formalities required. When 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.121/2015-16/124 dated 14-06-2016 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/051/2016 Dr. George Abraham, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant, Sri George Abraham, is a domestic consumer with consumer No. 5899 under Electrical Section, Keerambara, Kothamangalam, who is aggrieved by the exorbitant electricity bill issued to him on 23-02-2016 for an amount of Rs. 12,218.00. So, the appellant approached the Assistant Engineer with a complaint against the impugned bill. Accordingly, the respondent verified the accuracy of the meter by installing a check meter in the premises of the appellant and found that 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.04/2016-17/157 dated 27-06-2016 with a finding that the bill dated 23-02-2016 issued to the appellant is in order. Against the decision of the Forum, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above findings, the bill dated 23-02-2016 issued for Rs. 12,221.00 is quashed. The respondent is directed to prepare new bill only for the energy recorded for the month of February 2016 for 817 units. The order of CGRF-CR/Comp.04/2016-17/157 dated 27-06-2016 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/050/2016 Sri. V. Christhu das, Thiruvananthapuram
|
|
| The appellant, Sri V. Christhu das, has filed this appeal petition for disconnecting the service connection with consumer no. 20277 issued to Sri Nicholas, Karunya Bhavan, Kanchampazhinji P.O. Thiruvananthapuram, under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Poovar. The appellant’s grievance is that the above service connection was availed by Sri Nicholas on production of fake ownership certificate and now using the premises as a saw mill even without obtaining license from the Local Authorities and sanction from the Pollution Control Board. Meanwhile, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kottarakkara, and the Forum disposed the petition vide order in OP No. 53/2016 dated 16-06-2016, as; “Before going to the details of this case the Forum found that it is a matter of civil and criminal in nature. Already a civil suit is pending before the Civil Court against the owner of the saw mill. The matter of producing fake ownership certificate and building rules violation etc are not within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Considering the contentions as well as rival contentions it is revealed that the dispute can be resolved only after getting the order from the Civil Court. Hence the Forum decided to dispose the matter accordingly.” Aggrieved by the said order of CGRF, the appellant has filed the appeal petition, before this Authority. Hearing of the case was conducted on 26-10-2016 in my camber at Edappally. The appellant himself appeared for hearing. Sri Joykutty T.K., Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Vizhinjam represented the respondent. It appears that the appellant is only a neighbour of Sri. Nicholas (registered owner of service connection with consumer No. 20277) and that the appellant is not coming under the purview of the definition of a complainant as per Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005. In short, he has no locus-standi to file this kind of petition before the CGRF or Electricity Ombudsman. As per Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, the “complainant” who is entitled to approach CGRF or Electricity Ombudsman is defined as follows:- 2. (e) “complainant” means – (i) any consumer of electricity supplied by the licensee including applicant for new connections; (ii) a voluntary electricity consumer association/forum or other corporate or group of electricity consumers; (iii) the Central Government or State Government – who or which makes the complaint; (iv) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heirs or representatives. The term “consumer” is also defined in the said Regulation. (g) “Consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee and includes any person whose premises are connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee or a person whose electricity supply is disconnected by a licensee or the person who has applied for connection for receiving electricity from a licensee, as the case may be; The appellant herein is not a “complainant” as defined 2 (e) of the Regulations and the petition is not related to as a consumer. Hence he is not entitled to make a representation before this Authority. Moreover, it is seen that the present case is only a part of a larger dispute going on between the appellant and Sri Nicholas in various Forums including competent Civil Court. However, during the discussion it is revealed that the Additional District Magistrate Thiruvananthapuram has issued orders to temporarily discontinue the working of saw mill of Sri. Nicholas vide Order No. S9-40208/14 dated 01-09-2016. In view of the facts that the appellant is not a “consumer” as defined in the Regulation 2 (g) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulation, 2005 and he is not competent to file a complaint before this Authority. Since the appellant is not a “complainant” as per Regulation 2 (e) (i), this appeal petition is not maintainable in law. The appeal petition is dismissed as not maintainable. |
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 | 364 |
 | All | 4879133 |