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/002/2017 Sri. Jaffer Khan Ernakulam 
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Jaffer Khan, is conducting a plywood unit in the name and style of M/s Perfect Plywoods. The appellant’s unit is provided with an LT three phase service connection with consumer number 18856 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Valayanchirangara. It is alleged that the agent entrusted for arranging service connection after installing a transformer under the ‘Minimum Guarantee Scheme’ has made arrangements for installation of transformer under OYEC scheme by mistake. Hence the appellant has to pay huge amount of Rs. 6,98,948.00 towards the installation of transformer. Even though the respondent allowed 12 instalments @ Rs. 36,276.00 towards the installation charges of the transformer under OYEC scheme, the appellant could only remit the first instalment as per the above sanction. Further, the appellant has defaulted remittance of current charges as well as OYEC instalments, a notice was issued to him by the respondent to remit the amount with interest. Instead of remitting the amount, the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing WP(C) 5050/2015 which was disposed of by directing to remit one-half amount. Against this, the appellant filed a Writ Appeal No. 618/2015 wherein the Division Bench directed not to insist one-half payment but to consider his application and pass appropriate orders. On the application submitted by the appellant, since no favourable order was passed the appellant again approached the Hon’ble High Court vide WP(C) No. 11593/2016 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to dispose of the petition granting the appellant to remit the arrears in instalments. However, the appellant could not remit the dues and the respondent issued demand notice dated 16-06-2016 demanding Rs. 6,63,558.00 towards the OYEC instalments and Rs. 57,803.00 towards the penal interest. Aggrieved against this the appellant approached with a petition before CGRF, Ernakulam. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No. 34558/2016 before the Hon’ble High Court. The appellant alleged that the respondent disconnected the service on 16-06-2016 and later dismantled on 28-10-2016. The CGRF dismissed the petition vide order in No. 77/2016-17 dated 21-12-2016. Aggrieved against the order of Forum, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above discussions the respondent is hereby directed to revise the arrears pending in this case and to allow the appellant to clear the same in 6 installments. The appellant is directed to remit the 50% of the arrears as first installment within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation from the respondent. The service shall be reconnected within a period of 15 days from the date of payment of first installment. It is also directed to sanction 5 equal installments for remitting the balance arrears. The respondent is directed to revise the penal interest after 17-04-2015. The interest shall be levied strictly in accordance with the Regulation 131 (2) of Supply Code, 2014. If the appellant fails to remit the amount of arrears with interest on or before due date indicated in the demand notice, the licensee may initiate proceedings for the recovery of arrears in accordance with the relevant legal provisions. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
| P/058/2016 Sri. C.P. Paul Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant is running a hotel in the name and style, ‘Paulson Park Hotel’, with consumer number 5481 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam. On 05-09-2001, the appellant had submitted an application before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, College, Ernakulam for conversion of existing LT service connection to HT, after remitting the required application fee and after complying with all necessary formalities. Moreover, the appellant had executed an OYEC agreement on 03-05-2002 with the Assistant Executive Engineer for availing the HT supply and remitted an amount of Rs. 2,84,400.00 towards cash deposit for allocation of power to the extent of 180 kVA with a contract demand of 150 kVA. The power allocation was sanctioned as per proceedings dated 09-08-2002 of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Ernakulam and the appellant had remitted the estimated amount of Rs. 1,11,100.00 on 14-08-2002 as demand draft for carrying out the works, as directed by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Ernakulam. Meanwhile, one Sri Ameer V. Aslam objected for erecting electric post in front of his land and subsequently the locations of poles were changed. A revised estimate for Rs. 1,37,790.00 was prepared by the respondent, as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court in OP No. 31261/2002 filed by Sri. Ameer V. Aslam. However, the appellant remitted the additional demand for Rs. 26,690.00 under protest on 10-06-2003. Though the contractor had started the work for giving HT service connection, the work could not be carried out due to the presence of so many telephone cables drawn along the road. Consequently, erection of the proposed DP structure was shifted to the opposite side of the road. Against this proposal, one Smt. Mary Sebastine had filed a petition before the Assistant Executive Engineer objecting to the drawing of the line and also filed a suit vide OS No. 888 of 2003. An injunction was passed against the Board preventing from proceeding further steps in this regard. Since the respondent did not carry out further steps, the appellant filed WP(C) 25386/2003 before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Board to apprise the Civil Court regarding the statutory provisions and the objections of land owner have to be considered by the District Magistrate and the Court will consider the alternate remedy available under the statute and the suit can be disposed of by the Munsiff Court if found not maintainable. After vacating the injunction by the District Court, the respondent filed a complaint before the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. As per the proceedings dated 05-02-2007, the Additional District Magistrate directed the Board to draw the line as per Horizontal Direct Drilling (HDD) method after removing the posts already erected in front of Mary Sebastian’s property. The grievance of the appellant is that the inordinate delay to provide HT service connection had resulted in bringing to a halt of functioning of the hotel, which consequently resulted in default in payment of electricity charges and subsequently dismantlement of connection. The appellant approached the CGRF requesting to treat him as a deemed HT consumer with effect from 05-09-2001 till dismantling of the service and further claiming a sum of Rs.1,63,71,357.00 towards loss and damages suffered by the appellant on account of non conversion of the LT connection to HT. The CGRF dismissed the petition vide order No. 30/2006-07 dated 10-12-2007 as it found no merit in the contentions of the appellant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CGRF the appellant had filed appeal petition before this Authority. The appeal was disposed of by ordering that the billing done from August 2003 has to be revised at HT treating the appellant as a deemed HT consumer and no other reliefs, vide order No. 02/2008 of 14-3-2008. The KSEB filed WP(C) 20445/2008 before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the order rendered by the Ombudsman directing to treat the consumer as deemed HT from August 2003 onwards. On the other hand, the appellant also filed WP (C) 26745/2008 challenging orders passed by the CGRF as well as Ombudsman declining to grant the amount of compensation claimed. The Hon’ble High Court, in its common judgment dated 27-11-2013, remanded the matter afresh, after affording fresh opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned. In view of the discussions it is decided that the appellant is eligible for deemed HT consumer with effect from 08-02-2003 to the date of dismantling of service i.e. 16-05-2006. It is also made clear that the appellant is entitled for refund of the amount deposited for effecting the conversion from LT to HT with interest at bank rate as on the date of remittance of amount. The question of compensation of Rs. 1,63,71,367.00 claimed by the appellant, this Authority is not empowered to take a decision as to the right of the appellant to claim compensation and to decide the amount of damage sustained by the appellant in this regard. That question is left open. The appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for the damages if he so desires. |
| P/083/2016 Smt. Aysha Malappuram
|
|
| The appellant, Smt. Aysha, is a domestic consumer with consumer number 6736 having a connected load of 200 Watts under Electrical Section, Purangu. On 29-05-2016 an inspection was conducted in the appellant’s premises, had detected that the service wire was directly connected to the output of the meter and the actual connected load of the premises was found as 2205 Watts. Based on the inspection, a penal bill for Rs. 40,309.00 was issued to the appellant after disconnecting the supply and initiated proceedings for theft of electricity as per Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. So, the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF. It is alleged that the outsiders who had personal grudge against the appellant on certain issues had committed the offence. The appellant also suspect one line staff of KSEB in this case who demanded bribe for rectifying the supply disruption in the premises. According to the respondent, the issue of penal bill is with respect to an assessment for theft of electricity as per Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the CGRF is barred from entertaining such complaints in view of Regulation 2 (1) (f) (vii) (1) of the KSERC (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005. Hence the Forum held that it was improper to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved against the said order of the Forum, this appeal petition was filed. In short, the appellant herein is not entitled to file a complaint before the CGRF and this Authority against the bill raised under Section 126 of Electricity Act. If she had got strong argument against the disputed bill, she ought to have raised the same before the Appellate Authority under 127 of the Electricity Act. Such a course is the only remedy available. In the above circumstances, this Authority is of the firm view that the appeal petition is not maintainable. It is left open to the appellant to appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act, 2003, if desires so within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 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 | 644 |
 | All | 4879413 |