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/090/2016 Sri. Abdul Razak Aanathan Malappuram. 
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Abdul Razak Aanathan, is having a 3 phase service connection issued for industrial purpose, under Electrical Section, Valluvambram, Malappuram, with consumer No: 11392. The appellant’s industry is named as ‘AMH Rice, Flour and Oil Mill’ and having a connected load of 11490 Watts. While being so, the appellant made a written complaint to the Assistant Engineer to test the meter as the energy meter was recording abnormal consumption. Accordingly the meter was tested by installing a standard reference meter and found that the existing meter is recording more than the actual consumption. So the meter was replaced with a new one on 19-01-2016. The energy usage in subsequent months after 1/2016 also showed considerable decrease in consumption. The CGRF, Kozhikode, before whom the petition was filed by the appellant to get his bills revised from 6/2014 onwards and refund of excess amount collected, has ordered to revise the monthly bills during the period from 05/2015 to 01/2016 on the basis of average of 3 billing cycles after the replacement of faulty meter, vide Order No. 67/2016-17 dated 15-10-2016. The appellant is challenging the above decision of the CGRF especially on the period of billing from 05/2015 to 01/2016 and now demands the revision of bills with effect from 6/2014 to 01/2016. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 15th day of October 2016 in OP No: 67/2016-17 of CGRF, Kozhikode, this appeal petition is filed before this Authority. In view of the above facts, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene with the findings of the Forum in this regard. However, the respondent is directed to refund the amount with interest at bank rate as per Regulation 134(3) of Supply Code, 2014. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF in OP No. 67/2016-17 dated 15-10-2016 is modified to the extent as ordered. No order as to costs. |
| REVIEW PETITION NO. P/058/2016 Sri. C.P. Paul Ernakulam
|
|
| The review appellant is running a hotel in the name and style ‘Paulson Park Hotel’ having consumer number 5481 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam. On 5-9-2001, the review 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. The review appellant had executed an OYEC agreement with the Assistant Executive Engineer for the HT supply on 03-05-2002 and remitted an amount of Rs. 2,84,400.00 towards cash deposit for power allocation to the extent of 180 kVA with a contract demand of 150 kVA as per the application submitted for HT supply. The grievance of the review 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 review 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 service connection from LT to HT category. But the CGRF dismissed the petition as it is found no merit in the contentions of the review appellant; vide order no. 30/2006-07 dated 10-12-2007. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CGRF the review appellant filed appeal petition before this Authority which was disposed of with a direction to treat the review appellant as deemed HT consumer with effect from 08-02-2003 to 16-05-2006 vide order No. 02/2008 of 14-3-2008. In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal petition. The review jurisdiction is limited to rectify a mistake or an error which is apparent on the face of records and it cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction. The Hon’ble High Court in the common judgment dated 27-11-2013 in WP (C) Nos. 20445 and 26745 of 2008 have directed this Authority to dispose of Appeal Petition No P/002/2008 afresh. Accordingly this Authority has considered the reliefs sought for in the original appeal filed by the appellant in P/002/2008 and disposed of the case. Now the relief claimed in the review petition is for a different matter. If the review appellant is aggrieved by the order of this Authority, it is free for him to challenge that order before the appropriate authority. Here there is no mistake apparent on the face of records is pointed out or anything which was not brought out before this Authority when the case was decided so as to review the order. In this background, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued. In view of the above discussions, I hold that review petition is not maintainable as there is no cause or sufficient reason established by the review appellant, for the review of the order already issued. Hence the review petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. |
| P/007/2017 Sri M.J. Thomas, Maradu,, Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant, Sri M.J. Thomas, is a HT consumer having a three phase connection with consumer code LCN2/6664 under Electrical Section, Maradu under HT IV tariff. On 13-05-2016, the HT Meter Test Unit of KSEB conducted an inspection in the premises of the appellant and it was found that there is current failure on ‘R’ phase from 23-08-2014 onwards. On detailed examination it was revealed that the ‘R’ phase in the CT meter was faulty and a flash mark is seen on the ‘R’ phase PT bush. Further, the respondent issued direction to the appellant to replace both CT and PT. The appellant was issued with a short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 5,05,159.00 on 29-08-2016, for the meter faulty period from 8/2014 to 04/2016. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the CGRF, Ernakulam by filing a Complaint No. 72/2016-17. The CGRF dismissed the petition holding that the short assessment bill dated 29-08-2016 for Rs. 5,05,159.00 was in order. Feeling aggrieved against the above decisions of CGRF the appellant has approached this Authority with this appeal petition. In the instant case, it is proved beyond doubt that one phase of the energy meter was missing from 23-08-2014 and thus the appellant has actually consumed the energy, the short assessment bill issued for the period from 8/2014 to 04/2016 as per Regulation 152(3) is found in order. It is also found that the short assessment bill is calculated based on the average consumption of previous 3 months and the consumption after replacing the CT/PT is higher than the previous average. Hence the appellant is liable to remit the amount without any interest. In view of the above factual and legal position, I don’t find any reason to interfere with the short assessment bill issued dated 29-08-2016 for Rs. 5,05,159.00. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The order of CGRF in OP No CGRF-CR/Comp./72-2016-17/475 dated 21-12-2016 is upheld. 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 | 783 |
 | All | 4879552 |