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/040/2017 Sri Sajive Manjila, Palakkad. 
|
|
| The appellant Sri Sajive Manjila, is an LT three phase consumer of electricity with No. 5871 under Electrical Section, Kunissery and is the Chairman of the firm, M/s Manjilas Food Tech Pvt. Ltd. The connection was said to be given under LT IV A – industrial tariff based on the application and certificate produced by the Applicant for a rice mill having manufacturing process. The registered connected load of the consumer is 133 kW with a Contract Demand of 120 kW. While being so, an inspection was conducted in the consumer’s premises on 20-09-2016 by the APTS, Palakkad of KSEB. It was detected in the inspection that no manufacturing process in the premises and a mahazar was also prepared noting down the anomalies found there. Since the tariff for a mill without manufacturing process comes under LT VIIA‐commercial, a short assessment bill for of Rs. 5,23,323/‐, was prepared to recover the revenue loss occurred, due to the difference in the tariff rate between the LT VII A ‐ commercial and LT IV ‐ industrial tariff and served on the consumer. Being aggrieved by the short assessment bill and the change of tariff of his unit, the consumer filed a petition before the CGRF, Northern Region, Kozhikode, and the same was got dismissed vide Order OP No.114/2016-17 dated 03-03-2017. Aggrieved by this Order, the appellant has filed the Appeal Petition before this Authority. In view of the above discussions, order of the CGRF, Northern Region, Kozhikode vide OP No.114/2016-17 dated 03-03-2017 is modified by limiting the assessment of wrong classification of tariff for a period of 12 months as per Regulation 97(5) of Supply Code, 2014, under LT VII A tariff. The appellant is also free to approach the respondent for reclassification of tariff on the basis of present activities and the respondent shall take proper action in the application under Regulation 98 of Supply Code, 2014. Appeal is allowed to the extent as ordered above and disposed accordingly. No order as to costs. |
| P/017/2017 Sri Mithelesh Murali, Pathanamthitta- 689645
|
|
| The appellant, Administrator of MGM., Muthoot Medical Centre, Pathanamthitta had applied for a HT power connection to the Muthoot Nursing College and Ladies Centre, Pathanamthitta at the precinct of MGM Muthoot Medical Centre for contract demand to an extent of 130 kVA. The appellant remitted Rs.10/- and Rs. 10,000/-, towards application fee and advance amount respectively on 06-12-2012. The appellant had remitted an amount of Rs. 18,89,000/- towards the estimate cost for laying of 380 metre UG cable and constructing 360 metre 11 kV OH line in distribution side and Rs. 15,60,000/- towards the estimate cost for transmission part of the work on 11-12-2013, as demanded by the respondent. After completion of the work, the supply was provided on 13-05-2015. Aggrieved by the collection of Rs. 34,49,000/-, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara with a request to refund Rs. 34,49,000/- collected less the reasonable expenses incurred for the tapping arrangements for11 kV electricity from the nearest 11 kV distributing main in front of the premises and the expenses for supervision charges for drawing 11 kV service line cable provided by the appellant, along with interest at twice the bank rate with effect from the date of collection of amount until refund. The CGRF disposed the petition vide Order No. OP 83/2016 dated 30-12-2016, ordering that the respondent shall collect the actual expenses incurred for giving power supply from substation to the DP structure and refund the balance amount if any within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the decision of the CGRF, the appellant approached this Authority by filing this appeal petition. From the analysis done and the findings and conclusions arrived at, which are detailed above, I observe the following and take the following decisions. 1) The appellant remitted Rs. 18.89 Lakhs for laying 380 metre HT UG cable and constructing 360 metre 11 kV OH line in distribution side and 15.60 Lakhs for erecting 11 kV VCB & new coupler panel and allied works in transmission side for giving 130 kVA power. 2) The estimate was prepared by the respondent and the amount remitted by the appellant before 31-03-2014, during the application period of Supply Code, 2005. 3) The estimate for the distribution work was revised later, after 01-04-2005, and no realization of additional amount was made. 4) There was no revision of estimate in the transmission side. 5) Execution of work both in distribution and transmission were not in accordance with the estimate prepared for the purpose. 6) The actual works executed both in transmission and distribution sector were not evaluated. 7) The applicant has not requested for an exclusive feeder. As the work was executed not in accordance with the original estimate or revised estimate and an exclusive feeder was not constructed from the substation to the premises of the appellant, the evaluation-cum-cost report shall be prepared. The final accounts of each work, for which amount has been collected by KSEB to provide the electric supply to the appellant, may be prepared and the actual cost estimate be arrived at, incorporating the revisions as ordered above by this Forum, within three months of this order and the same shall be communicated appellant. The excess amount if any shall be refunded with interest. The Order No. OP 83/2016 dated 30-12-2016, 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 as to costs. |
| P/031/2017 Sri N.A.V. Abdulla, Kannur
|
|
| The appellant, Sri N.A.V Abdulla, Proprietor, Navab Printers & Publishers, Payyannur, Kannur registered as consumer No. 7661 in the jurisdiction area of Electrical Section, Payyannur is a 3 phase consumer with effect from 29-08-1990 in LT IV A tariff. The electric connection was disconnected on 27-03-2008 due to default in the remittance of monthly electricity bill. The appellant was issued with an arrear bill amounting to Rs. 28,513/- for the period from 03/2008 to 02/2014 and initiated revenue recovery proceedings against him. The appellant approached the CGRF, Northern Region, Kozhikode requesting to limit the arrear demand to six months. The CGRF has dismissed the petition on finding that the bill issued by the respondent was in order and the petition was found as devoid of any merits, vide its order OP No. 124/14-15 dated 07-10-2015. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted the Appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done and the findings and conclusions arrived at, I take the following decisions. I find total negligence and irresponsibility on the side of Board officials for which the consumer should not be held liable. The Board is duty bound to take appropriate action in time in the cases of disconnection, including issuing notices to the consumer. Hence the assessment done for period, 4/2008 to 2/2014, amounting to Rs. 28,513/‐, is decided as not admissible. Therefore, it is decided that the total assessment done by the Respondent, has to be revised and the respondent is directed to issue a fresh bill for current charge pending as on 27-03-2008 and minimum demand charges for 6 months from 4/2008 to 9/2008 and with thirty days time (due date) given for making the payment. No interest/surcharge is payable by the consumer up to the due date of the revised bill as ordered now. It is also directed to take immediate action to drop the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the appellant. The CGRF order dated 07-10-2015 in complaint No. 124/14-15 of CGRF, Kozhikode, stands set aside. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order on 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 | 902 |
 | All | 4879671 |