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/016/2017 Sri. Muhammed Rafeeque M.A. Mudickal P.O., Perumbavoor 
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Muhammed Rafeeque M.A., is an industrial consumer with consumer No. 12042 having connected load of 47 kW under Electrical Section, Vazhakulam. On 16-03-2016, the APTS of KSEB conducted a surprise inspection in the above premises and found that voltage of R phase (out of 3 phases) was missing in the energy meter due to fault in the connection to the meter. When one phase voltage being not sensed by the energy meter, the energy recorded would be only 2/3rd of the actual consumption. Hence the appellant was served with a short assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 2,92,664.00 on 19-03-2016. In order to recover the charges for the unrecorded portion of energy, the assessment was made for the period of seven months, when the meter was found recording less than the actual consumption. The appellant lodged complaint before the Assessing officer, the Assistant Engineer, against the said assessment, on 26-05-2016 which was disposed of with a direction to remit the assessed amount before 05-09-2016. Being not satisfied with the decision of the Assistant Engineer, the appellant approached the CGRF, Central Region, Ernakulam, with Petition No. OP 66/2016-17 and the Forum also dismissed the petition vide its order dated 31-12-2016. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the Forum, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority. Here in this case, the non recording of one phase of the energy meter in the appellant’s premises was detected by the respondent during the inspection conducted on 16-03-2016 but the appellant was charged only for 7 months instead of 12 months as per the above Regulation. The actual consumption recorded in the meter itself was taken for assessing the unrecorded portion of energy. The increase in consumption recorded after the rectification of defects clearly indicates and justifies the respondent’s claim that the appellant was undercharged for the period from 09/2015 onwards. So, a probable conclusion can be arrived at in this case is that the voltage of ‘R’ phase was missing from September 2015 onwards as per the downloaded data. Under the above circumstances the short assessment issued by the respondent is found in order. In view of the above factual and legal position, I don’t find any reason to interfere with the short assessment bill dated 19-03-2016 issued for Rs. 2,92,664.00. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The order of CGRF in OP No. CGRF-CR/Comp.66/2016-17 dated 31-12-2016 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
| P/010/2017 Sri. Abdul Gafoor M.A. Mudickal P.O., Perumbavoor
|
|
| The appellant Sri. Abdul Gafoor M.A., is an industrial consumer with consumer No. 9352 having connected load of 47 kW under Electrical Section, Vazhakulam. On 16-03-2016, the APTS of KSEB conducted a surprise inspection in the above premises and found that voltage of R phase (out of 3 phases) was missing in the energy meter due to fault in the connection to the meter. When one phase voltage being not sensed by the energy meter, the energy recorded would be only 2/3rd of the actual consumption. Hence the appellant was served with a short assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 1,59,474.00 on 19-03-2016. In order to recover the charges for the unrecorded portion of energy, the assessment was made for the period of one year, when the meter was found recording less than the actual consumption. The appellant lodged complaint before the Assessing officer, the Assistant Engineer, against the said assessment which was disposed of with a direction to remit the assessed amount before 05-09-2016. Being not satisfied with the decision of the Assistant Engineer, the appellant approached the CGRF, Central Region, Ernakulam with a petition and the Forum also dismissed the petition vide its order dated 21-12-2016. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the Forum, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority. The actual consumption recorded in the meter itself was taken for assessing the unrecorded portion of energy. The increase in consumption recorded after the rectification of defects clearly indicates and justifies the respondent’s claim that the appellant was undercharged for the period from 01/2015 onwards. So, a probable conclusion can be arrived at in this case is that the voltage of ‘R’ phase was missing from 01/2015 onwards as per the consumption pattern of the appellant. Under the above circumstances the short assessment issued by the respondent is found in order. In view of the above factual and legal position, I don’t find any reason to interfere with the short assessment bill dated 19-03-2016 issued for Rs. 1,59,474.00. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The order of CGRF No. CGRF-CR/Comp./71/2016-17 dated 21-12-2016 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
| P/015/2017 Sri Paramaswaran K. K., Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant, Sri K. K. Paramaswaran, is a commercial consumer (LT VII A) with consumer No. 34081, having a connected load of 4.9 kW, under Electrical Section, Palarivattom. The appellant submitted an application for an additional load of 120 kW on 15-12-2015 and is under processing. While being so, the appellant’s premises was inspected by the Assistant Engineer concerned on 28-09-2016 and detected that unauthorized additional load of 66.27 kW was connected and used in the premises. Hence the appellant was served with a provisional bill for an amount of Rs. 2,57,905.00 on 28-09-2016 towards the unauthorized additional load of 62 kW as per Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. As the appellant had not filed any objection against the provisional bill, the respondent issued final bill on 06-10-2016. Aggrieved against this bill, the appellant had filed a petition dated 07-10-2016, before the CGRF, Ernakulam. But the CGRF has dismissed the petition with a finding that the petition comes under the purview of Section 126 of Electricity Act and has no authority to entertain the petition, vide its order No. CGRF–CR/ Comp. 88/2016-17 dated 23-12-2016. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority. In short, the appellant herein is not entitled to file a petition before this Authority against the bill raised under Section 126 of Electricity Act. It is therefore held that the remedy available to the appellant is only to file appeal before the Appellate Authority as per Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. It is made clear that for filing appeal a period of 30 days is allowed from the date of receipt of this order. The order of the CGRF is upheld. The appeal petition is rejected as not maintainable. 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 | 865 |
 | All | 4879634 |