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/082/2016 Sri. Muhammed Rafi Malappuram 
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Muhammed Rafi, had submitted an application for service connection before the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Thirunavaya, Malappuram, on 13-11-2013. He remitted the application fee and also paid Rs. 1,850.00 as cash deposit and OYEC charges. The grievance of the appellant is that the respondent failed to effect the service connection timely. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the CGRF (North), Kozhikode, with his petition dated 30-05-2016. The CGRF disposed of the petition directing the respondent to take up the matter with the District Magistrate so as to effect the connection to the petitioner without further delay. Meanwhile, the service connection was effected on 21-11-2016. Thereafter the appellant filed this appeal petition before this Authority seeking compensation for the delay in effecting the service connection. In view of the fact that the matter is settled I am not going into the merits of the rival contentions raised in the appeal. However, it is left open to the appellant to approach the authorities of licensee for compensation, if desires so. In the above circumstances the appeal is disposed of as above. The order of CGRF in OP No. 34/2016-17 dated 04-10-2016 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/080/2016 Sri. Beeran Koya West Hill, Kozhikode.
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Beeran Koya, is a consumer having No. 23398 with a connected load of 6 kW under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Mankavu. During inspection in the appellant’s premises on 14-09-2012, unauthorized additional load (UAL) to the tune of 75 kW was detected. Hence a penal bill for the period from 3/2012 to 7/2012 for an amount of Rs. 2,01,332.00 was issued and the same was paid by the appellant. While so, the Audit party noticed that though the appellant has regularized the additional load only on 16-03-2013 the penalization was not continued for the period from 9/2012 to 7/2013. Thus a short assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 5,02,636.00, towards the penal charges for unauthorized additional of 75 kW was issued on 27-11-2015 for the period from 9/2012 to 7/2013. Aggrieved against the bill, the appellant filed an objection before the Assessing Officer on 09-12-2015, which was dismissed vide proceedings dated 15-01-2016. So the appellant approached the CGRF with a petition and the Forum allowed the petition in part and quashed the impugned bill. Still not satisfied with the decision of CGRF in OP No. 179/2015-16 dated 22-06-2016, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the reported decision of Hon’ble High Court referred above, the case in hand, the respondent failed to make a provisional assessment during the period under dispute after giving an opportunity to file objection. But the respondent simply imposed penalty for an amount of Rs. 5,02,636.00 even without observing the procedural formalities contemplated under Section 126 (2) & (3). Therefore, the penal bill issued for Rs. 5,02,636.00 is hereby quashed. However, the respondent is free to initiate fresh proceedings if it is proposed to impose penalty on the allegation of continued usage of unauthorized additional load for the period from 9/12 till the date of application for regularization the quantum of penalty shall be limited as per the method described above. The imposition of penalty, if any, proposed shall be finalized by the respondent at any rate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal petition is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF in OP No. 179/2015-16 dated 22-06-2016 is modified. No order as to costs. |
| P/081/2016 Sri. Shahul Hameed Kollam.
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Shahul Hameed, is a consumer under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Karunagappally (South). The appellant’s case is that an extremely dangerous High-Tension 11 kV line which is passing through densely populated residential area from the KIP transformer to Railway Station Road in the 13th Division of Karunagappally Municipality. It is alleged that as the above High Tension line is in hazardous situation due to dilapidated posts and excessively sagging of bare conductors, the then Executive Engineer proposed an alternative route to shift the line during 2010-2011 and the then Chief Engineer approved the project and the preliminary works were started. The appellant further argued that the project got delayed due to some unknown reasons. By that time, some persons purchased the paddy fields and nearby lands and built office of their construction company at the point where the 11 kV line passing through paddy fields meets the railway station road. The appellant suspects that the KSEB officials are hand in gloves with the land mafia and against for the decommissioning the 11 kV line through the densely populated area. So the appellant along with the residents of that area filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum [South], Kottarakara. But the Forum dismissed their complaint vide order dated 30-09-2016. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is held that in the case of appellant and others are of dire need for shifting the feeder they can approach the licensee expressing their willingness to pay the labour charges for the shifting work. In that event, the respondent shall consider the entire issue and find out a feasible route to shift the feeder passing through the appellant’s area with minimum labour charges. However, it is made clear that the 11 kV feeder passing through the thickly populated area must be maintained as per standards without any delay. The appeal petition is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF in OP No. 139/2016 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 | 631 |
 | All | 4879400 |