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/019/2017 Sri Ashraf P.M. Thrissur 
|
|
| The service connection with consumer No. 1648 under Electrical Section, Thalikulam was registered in favour of the appellant’s father, Sri Muhammed, who expired during 2005. Since the appellant failed to remit the electricity charges of the above service from 4/1999 onwards, the respondent disconnected the service during 2009 and subsequently dismantled. So, the appellant had filed a petition before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF), Thrissur against the dismantling of the service connection. The appellant also requested for reconnection and to compensate the loss sustained to him due to the dismantling of service by the respondent. The Hon’ble CDRF, Thrissur, disposed of the complaint vide order No CC.66/2010 dated 16-05-2014 after allowing the complaint partially and the following orders are passed. a) “To restore the power supply is made absolute. b) The complainant is directed to submit application for exemption to the Agricultural Officer within one month, who should dispose the same within a month. If he is found eligible for exemption, he has right to get exemption from the inception. c) No order as to costs”. Even though the respondent reconnected the service as per the orders of CDRF, the appellant had not produced any sanction from the Agricultural Officer for exemption of payment of electricity charges. Hence the respondent issued notice for disconnection along with arrear bill. But the appellant has not remitted the arrear bill; the service was disconnected and later dismantled after issuing notice to the appellant and revenue recovery proceedings initiated to recover the arrear amount. Aggrieved against this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Ernakulam on 23-01-2017 which was not admitted but rejected on the ground that the complaint does not come under the category of grievance of an ‘Electricity Consumer’ as specified in the Regulations, vide letter No. CGRF-CR/Misc/2016-17 dated 31-01-2017. Feeling aggrieved with the above decision, the appellant has filed this appeal petition before this Authority with a request to restore the electricity connection, to set aside the arrear bill and also to cancel the RR action already initiated against the appellant. Having considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, I hold that the demand issued to the appellant is not sustainable and hence the same is quashed. The respondent is directed to issue fresh demand towards the electricity charges for the period after 2009 in accordance with the Regulation 136(3) of Supply Code, 2014. This shall be done at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. No surcharge shall be levied from the appellant during the appeal pending period. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The appeal petition filed by the appellant stands disposed of with the decisions ordered as above. No order as to costs. |
| P/006/2017 Sri. Eldho Elias Ernakulam
|
|
| The appellant, Sri Eldho Elias, constructed a building in the name and style, “Elias Square” under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Palarivattom. The appellant has applied for HT supply of power requirement of 250 kVA for commercial purpose on 07-12-2012. In order to effect the supply from 110 kV Substation, Kaloor, additional 10 MVA transformer is to be erected. So, the respondent has demanded a sum of Rs. 3,37,500.00 on per kVA basis @ Rs. 1,350.00/kVA as pro-rata transmission side development charges from the appellant. Against this demand, the appellant had filed WP (C) 6344/2013 and the Hon’ble High Court in its interim order directed the licensee to effect service connection without collecting pro-rata transmission development charges and it was also directed the appellant to approach the CGRF and dispose of the Writ Petition accordingly. Therefore, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF which was disposed of vide Order No. 80/2016-17 dated 21-12-2016, 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 order No. CGRF-CR/Comp. 80/2016-17 dated 21-12-2016 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
| P/024/2017 Sri. Viju G., Alappuzha.
|
|
| The appellant is a domestic consumer having consumer number 23209 under Electrical Section, Haripad. According to the appellant, his average bimonthly consumption was around 300 units only. Being so, he was served with an exorbitant bill dated 07-07-2016 for an amount of Rs. 35,139.00 alleging that the bimonthly consumption is 5908 units. Even though the appellant filed a complaint in the Section Office, he remitted the bill amount on 18-07-2016 due to the fear of disconnection. Later, the appellant approached the CGRF, Ernakulam with a complaint to refund the excess amount collected from him. But the CGRF has dismissed the petition vide order No. CGRF–CR/Comp.97/2016‐17 dated 30-12-2016, on finding that the excess consumption was recorded due to the failure of main switch of the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above discussions, the issuance of demand for an amount of Rs. 35,139.00 towards the excess consumption on the appellant merely on the assumption that the leakage happened due to substandard installations of the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to revise the bimonthly bill for 07-07-2016 based on the average consumption. The excess amount remitted by the appellant shall be refunded with interest as per Regulation 134(2) of the Supply Code, 2014. This shall be done at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The order of CGRF No. CGRF–CR/Comp.97/2016‐17 dated 30-12-2016 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 | 912 |
 | All | 4879681 |