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/003/2017 N. Raveendran Kollam. 
|
|
| Dr. N. Raveendran, Director, Sriniketan Central School, Karamcode, Kollam, the appellant is the registered consumer of electricity bearing Consumer No.11055 under Electrical Section, Chathannoor. The sanctioned connected load is 16 KW and the tariff allotted was VI A for functioning a self financing educational institution namely Sree Niketan Central School. An invoice for Rs. 28,374/- issued to the consumer for the short assessment period from 01/2008 to 01/2009 towards the misclassification of tariff and for the meter faulty period from 09/2011 to 03/2012. The appellant had approached the Hon’ble CGRF (SR) by filing a petition in OP No. 1588/2015. The Forum ordered to quash the bill dated 7-9-2015 for Rs. 28,374/-and directed to issue the revised bill only for the misclassification of tariff, vide order dated 16-12-2015. The bill was revised to Rs. 23,323.00 and a revised bill dated 21-1-2016 was issued to the appellant. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done and the Findings arrived at, I take the decisions as; Exactly following the decision of the Hon High Court stated above, the bill raised for the arrears of the period from 01/2008 to 01/2009 towards the misclassification of tariff shall be kept pending. But the same will be subject to the result of the judgment in the batch of SLP’s pending before the Hon: Supreme Court on the issue of electricity tariff applicable to Self Financing Educational Institutions and the respondent shall act as per the verdict, on its pronouncement. It is clarified that the disputed short assessment bill dated 21-01-2016, issued to the appellant shall be kept pending, till the decision in the referred SLPs filed before the Hon Supreme Court on the same issue (eligible tariff applicable to Self Financing Educational Institutions) is decided by the Hon Court and the respondent shall act accordingly. The order in OP No. 1588/2015 dated 16th day of December, 2015 of CGRF (South), Kottarakkara, stands modified to this extent. Having decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is disposed of with the said decisions taken and issued. No order on costs. |
| P/013/2017 Smt. Santhamma P., Kollam.
|
|
| The appellant is an LT industrial consumer bearing No. 11155 under Electrical Section, Kanjiramkuzhy. She is running a pitch mill unit with an installed connected load of 8000 watts. While so, on 16-06-2016 the appellant was served with a short assessment bill for Rs. 8696/‐ stating that the bill raised during the period of 10/2014 to 01/2015 was less than the actual due amount, on the basis of an audit inspection report of KSEB. The consumer was again issued a revised bill dated 12-07-2016 for Rs. 11,865/-. Again the respondent issued another bill dated 09-08-2016 for Rs.11604/- including arrear amount of 8567/-. The consumer filed Petition before the CGRF, Kottarakkara, which was disposed of by order dated 28-12-2016, by quashing the bill dated 09-08-2016 for Rs.3037/- and by upholding the bill dated 16-06-2016. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF and the bill, the consumer filed this appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above, I take the following decision. From the meter reading details furnished by the KSEB, I notice that the respondent had recorded the status of meter from 09/2014 to 12/2014 is working and is seen as good. No checking of the meter was conducted by the respondent during that period. It was not confirmed by the licensee whether the meter was faulty/damaged or not. The quantum of energy as the average energy used by the consumer for the disputed period as 400 units was revised by KSEB on a later date. As such, the disputed bill dated 16-06-2016 for Rs.8696/- is hereby quashed. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The appeal petition filed by the consumer is found having merits and is allowed. The related CGRF’s order vide, OP No. 158/2016 dated 28-12-2016, of the CGRF, Kottarakkara, is modified to this extent. No order on costs. |
| P/36/2017 K.M. Mohandas, Thrissur.
|
|
| The appellant is a registered consumer with consumer no. 8459 C under the electricity distribution licensee, Thrissur Corporation. The LT service connection given to the appellant on 30-04-1990 and it was converted to HT connection with effect from 07-04-2014. Initially the LT supply was given from a transformer having capacity of 250 kVA under minimum guarantee scheme agreement on condition that a sum of Rs. 5,406/- payable by every month for a period of 8 years. The appellant had remitted Rs. 11,550/- on 10-10-1998 and Rs. 5,59,741/- on 30-11-2012 as security and additional security deposit respectively. The respondent had dismantled the old outdoor transformer and shifted to another location, on commissioning the HT indoor transformer in the premises of the appellant. The appellant had demanded refund of the security deposit made by him towards the LT connection and also the cost of LT transformer which was installed at his expenses. Further appellant has stated that for shifting the old transformer to the new location, laying the cables including earth works and other associated connected works, the total amount was paid by the appellant which also to be repaid. The appellant approached the respondent with a request to refund the following amounts with interest vide a number of letters. Cost of transformer = Rs. 5,18,976/- Amount paid by way of security deposit = Rs.6,09,291/- The cost incurred for cabling and shifting of existing transformer to the new location = Rs. 7,55,929/-. Their request was not considered by the respondent, the appellant had submitted a petition dated 08-02-2016 directly to this Authority without approaching the CGRF, Thrissur Corporation as per the existing rules. The appellant was informed by this Authority that since the Thrissur Corporation filed WP © No. 26882 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala against the orders dated 29-12-2015 issued in appeal petition No. P/127/2015 and order dated 06-06-2016 in review petition No. P/127/2015, this office is not in a position to take any action in this regard. Challenging this, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P. (C) 6771 of 2017. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, on 01-03-2017, directed the 1st respondent i.e., this Authority to consider the representation made at Ext. P1 within a period of three months, with notice, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Accordingly notices were issued to the appellant and the respondent and heard both parties on 25-05-2017 and 02-06-2017. In view of the above discussions, it is decided to reject the request of the petitioner for the cost of transformer and shifting charges. Here in this case, a Writ Petition is seen filed by the respondent, Thrissur Corporation before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide W.P. (C) 26882 of 2016 and is pending for its decision. Hence it is further decided that the request of the petitioner for the refund of Security Deposit is subject to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the said Writ Petition. The respondent will consider the request for refund of the security deposit on the basis of the disposal of the writ petition filed by them. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of accordingly. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. 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 | 883 |
 | All | 4879652 |