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/077/2016 Sri. Arun R Chandran, Ernakulam 
|
|
| The appellant represents M/s Indus Towers Ltd., a company providing passive infra structure service to telecommunication providers. The consumer number of appellant’s three phase service connection is 17633 coming under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Mudappallur. The connected load of the appellant is 24.10 kW and tariff is LT VI F. The appellant is paying the current charges regularly without any due or delay. But the respondent as per the invoice dated 29-02-2016 directed the appellant to remit an amount of Rs. 28,806.00 being the short assessment based on the findings that the meter was sluggish during the period from 06/2014 to 07/2014. An objection against the demand was filed before the Assistant Engineer but he did not allow the petition and rejected without quoting any valid reasons. So the appellant had approached the Hon’ble CGRF (NR) by filing a petition in OP No. 28/2016-17. The Forum dismissed the petition vide order dated 09-09-2016. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above findings the short assessment issued to the appellant for Rs. 28,806.00 is quashed. The order of CGRF in OP No. 28/2016-17 dated 09-09-2016 is set aside. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. |
| P/078/2016 Sri. Arun R Chandran, Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant represents M/s Indus Towers Ltd., a company providing passive infra structure service to telecommunication providers. The consumer number of the appellant’s three phase service connection is 12001 having 34.300 kW connected load under LT VI F tariff and is under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Vadakkanchery. The appellant is paying the current charges regularly without any due or delay. But the respondent as per the invoice dated directed the appellant to remit an amount of Rs. 87,350.00 being the short assessment based on the findings that the meter was sluggish during the period from 09/2014 to 04/2015. An objection against the demand was filed before the Assistant Engineer but he did not allow the petition and rejected without quoting any valid reason or regulations. So the appellant had approached the Hon’ble CGRF (NR) by filing a petition in OP No. 65/2016-17. The Forum vide order dated 09-09-2016 directed the respondent to re-assess the short assessment based on the average of 3 billing cycles after the replacement of meter and to issue a fresh bill based on the above only for a period of 2 billing cycles. Based on the above order, the bill of Rs. 87,350.00 was revised to Rs. 22,037.00. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above findings the revised short assessment as per the order of CGRF for Rs. 22,037.00 is hereby quashed. The order of CGRF in OP No. 65/2016-17 dated 09-09-2016 is set aside. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. |
| P/071/2016 M/s KITCO Ltd., Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant, M/s KITCO Ltd., is a Kerala State public sector Company engaged in consultancy and allied activities. The appellant has applied for HT supply of power to the extent of 130 kVA under Electrical Section, Vennala. The licensee has demanded a sum of Rs. 2,95,000.00 computed @ Rs. 2270.00/kVA as pro-rata transmission side development charges on per kVA basis from the appellant, as the proportionate cost for enhancing the capacity of Sub Station. Against this demand, the appellant had filed WP (C) 3951/2013 and the Hon’ble High Court in its interim order dated 11-02-2013 directed KSEB to effect power connection without collecting per kVA development charges and in judgment dated 27-05-2016, it was directed the appellant to approach the CGRF and accordingly the Writ Petition was disposed of. So, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF which was disposed of vide Order No. 32/2016-17 dated 30-09-2016, with a finding that the demand raised by the respondent is correct and the appellant is bound to pay the same. Challenging the decision of the CGRF, the appellant approached this Authority by filing this appeal petition. In view of the above discussions the respondent is hereby directed to prepare a revised demand on the estimate cost of work for the capacity enhancement necessitated for giving supply to the appellant at any rate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the appellant shall remit the same within one month, failing which the licensee shall be entitled to recover the same. Excess remittances if any made by the appellant shall be refunded by adjustment in the monthly current charges/direct refund within a period of 3 months. The appeal filed by the appellant is admitted to the extent as ordered above. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. The CGRF order No. 32/2016-17 dated 30-09-2016 is set aside. 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 | 598 |
 | All | 4879367 |