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/064/2016 Sri. Suresh Babu P Kozhikode 
|
|
| The commercial service connection (LT VII A) with consumer No. 18490 under Electrical Section, Vellimadukunnu is registered in the name of Sri Abdul Kareem P. P. The appellant, Sri Suresh Babu is the present occupier of the premises, who is running a fruit and vegetable shop in the above premises. The sanctioned connected load of the premises was 1080 Watts. It is alleged that the appellant connected unauthorized additional load to the extent of 6 kW and was issued a provisional bill amounting to Rs. 77,462.00 as per Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003. Though the registered consumer Sri Abdul Kareem filed objection against the provisional assessment, the respondent revised the assessment and issued a final bill for an amount of Rs. 74,324.00. But the respondent argued that the assessment is made under Section 126 of the Act, the CGRF and Ombudsman is barred from entertaining such complaints in view of Clause 2 (1) (f) (vii) (1) of the KSERC (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005. In short, the appellant herein is not entitled to file a complaint before CGRF or this Authority against the bill raised under Section 126 of Electricity Act. If he had got strong arguments against the disputed bill, he ought to have raised the same before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act. Such a course is the only remedy available to him. |
| P/073/2016 - Sri. P. Viswanathan Kochi 682017.
|
|
| The appellant is having a 3 phase domestic service connection with consumer no: 11898, under Electrical Section, Kaloor, Ernakulam. The gist of the complaint raised by the appellant is that on 13-04-2010 since there was an abnormal sound from the energy meter and observed that the meter was working at an extensively fast rate, even when the meter was switched off. Since the consumption recorded in the meter was more than 20000 units, the matter was reported to the Section Office in writing on the same day. An Overseer from the Section Office visited the premises on the same day and declared that the meter was faulty. It was also informed that there is shortage of meter and there are many similar cases are pending and hence the same will be replaced as and when the meter made available. The appellant’s grievance is that the licensee has not replaced the faulty meter even after a lapse of more than 6 years and charging at the rate of 280 units bimonthly, the average consumption of 3 billing cycles prior to the date of meter became faulty. The appellant was forced to pay this amount on threat of disconnection if not paid on due date. While so, the appellant was issued a short assessment bill for Rs. 5,506.00 for the period from 3/2010 to 5/2013 on the basis of the audit report of Regional Audit Officer by assessing the average consumption as 344 units. Against this bill, the appellant submitted petitions dated 27-12-2013 and 24-1-2014 before the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kaloor. Later as per the proceedings dated 2-6-2016 of Assistant Engineer, Kaloor, the short assessment bill was cancelled. The faulty meter of the appellant was replaced on 25-5-2016. The CGRF, Ernakulam, before whom the petition was filed by the appellant, with a request to refund the excess amount collected from 4/2010 onwards, has ordered to revise the bimonthly bills from 4/2010 based on average consumption of the 3 billing cycles after the installation of the new meter and to refund the meter rent collected from the petitioner during the meter faulty period. The appellant is challenging the decision of the CGRF regarding revision of bills based on average consumption of the 3 billing cycles after the installation of the new meter as he is of the opinion that it should be revised based on the fixed/ minimum charges payable as per the tariff and to refund the excess amount collected and the meter rent collected with interest at the rate of 16% per annum. This appeal petition is filed as the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30-09-2016 in OP No: 44/2016-17 of CGRF, Ernakulam on the issue stated above among other things. Under the above mentioned circumstances it is held that the respondent is directed to issue revised bill based on the average consumption of 3 billing cycles immediately preceding the date of meter being found or reported defective as per Regulation 125(1) of Supply Code, 2014. However, the charging of appellant during the meter faulty period based on average consumption shall be limited for a maximum period of two billing cycles from 4/2010 as per Regulation 125(2) of Supply Code, 2014. It is made clear that the appellant is liable for making payment of fixed / minimum charges for the remaining period up to 5/2016 as per the applicable tariff in force. The excess amount collected from the appellant by way of energy charges and meter rent during the meter faulty period shall be refunded with interest as per Regulation 134 (3) of Supply Code, 2014. This shall be done at any rate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF dated 30-09-2009 is modified to the extent as ordered above. No order as to costs. |
| P/066/2016 Sri. K.A. Abraham Kottayam
|
|
| The appellant is having an industrial service connection (LT-IV tariff) for manufacturing of Rubber Waste Powder with consumer No. 6787 under Electrical Section, Nattakom. While so on 09-05-2006, the APTS of KSEB Kottayam conducted an inspection in the premises and found that one phase of the 3 phase CT meter was not recording energy consumption due to the defect of CT connected in that phase. Accordingly, the appellant was served with a short assessment bill for Rs. 1,67,261.00 for the period from November 2005 to April 2006. The appellant lodged complaint before the Assessing Officer, the Assistant Engineer, against the said assessment on 31-01-2006. But the Assistant Engineer directed the appellant to remit 1/3rd of the assessed bill and to file appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, HQ, Thiruvananthapuram. Aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Engineer, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 15153/2006 before Hon'ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgement dated 12-06-2006 directed CGRF, KSEB Ltd. to hear the complaint and dispose the same. The CGRF, Kottarakkara dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant as per order dated 14-07-2006. Aggrieved by the order of CGRF, Kottarakkara, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 23780/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court and the petition was disposed by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgement dated 16-08-2016. In the judgment dated 16-08-2016, the Court directed the appellant to approach this Authority for redressal of his grievances. Accordingly, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above observations, it is hereby ordered that the short assessment bill issued stands cancelled. However, it is made clear that the respondent is directed to reassess the appellant for the period from March 2006 to 16-05-2006 on the basis of the average consumption of the succeeding six months after rectification of defective CT. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 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 | 630 |
 | All | 4879399 |