Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 1 of 251
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 752
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
REVIEW PETITION No. 06/2018 IN APPEAL PETITION No. P/029/2018 - Sri. Sadiq P.A., Ernakulam


The appellant representing the Jewel Riverwoods Flat Owners Association, Aluva approached the Electrical Section, Aluva North for shifting two numbers of electrical posts installed in the flat compound to the private road outside the compound for which the flat owners have 50% ownership. But this was objected by the other owners of the private road and the matter was presented before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) by the respondent. The ADM dismissed the petition after hearing both parties as he found the petition lacks merits. Then the appellant approached the CGRF-CR, Ernakulam by filing a Petition vide No. 88/2017-18 and the CGRF directed the respondent to realign the post and line to the boundary of the property of the appellant after collecting the required charges, vide its order dated 31-03-2018. The respondent has prepared an estimate for shifting the PSC pole and realignment of three phase line on work deposit basis. The work was not done since the shifting will cause damage to the pipelines of the sewage treatment plant of the appellant. Then the appellant has submitted an appeal petition before this Authority which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to prepare an estimate for the drawing of the LT Aerial Bunched Cable (ABC) in the place of existing three phase four wire overhead conductor for two span of line within 15 days from the date of the order and inform the appellant and if the appellant is willing to accept the proposal and to bear the expenditure, the respondent shall carry out the work within one month without changing the location of the existing electric LT poles, vide Order No. P/29/2018 dated 03-07-2018. Accordingly the respondent has issued an estimate for converting overhead line to ABC amounting to Rs. 23,490/- to be done by the appellant and also directed to remit Rs. 224/- as supervision charges and to submit an undertaking by the appellant. The review appellant is not willing to accept the proposal of ABC and requested to implement the order of CGRF without changing the location of the pole and hence this review petition. 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. However, the respondent is free to take action to resolve the grievance of the review appellant by implementing a feasible proposal without any complaints from the rival parties. In this background, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued.
P/028/2018 - Sri. Tomy Njarakulam Ernakulam


The appellant represents, Balanagar Technical Institute, Mookkannoor, Angamaly which was having two numbers of Low Tension electric connections for separate buildings with consumer No.65 under LT-IV and Consumer No. 473 under LT-VI-B with sanctioned load of 52 KW and 45 KW respectively under Electrical Section, Mookkannoor. The appellant is running an educational institution. APTS inspected the premises on 8.2.1999 and alleged that there is additional load of 28 kW in regard to consumer No.65 and alleged that there is unauthorized load of 143 kW to consumer No.473 and thereafter penalty was demanded. The matter was taken up before the Appellate Authority by the appellant and the Authority dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the demands before the Hon. High Court of Kerala vide WP (C) No. 18844 of 2007 and the Court allowed the writ petition fixing the liability only on fixed charges as per judgment dated 22-03-2012. Since the Writ petition was decreed in favor of the appellant, the respondent filed appeal against the judgment and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 29-10-2014 in W.A No.294/2014, filed by the KSEB held that, the regulations issued by the KSEB cannot be applied retrospectively and allowed the writ appeal whereby the liability was fixed both on energy charges and fixed charges. Consequent to the demand notices issued, the appellant again approached the Hon'ble High Court challenging the demand dated 22-06-2015 and the Hon'ble High Court as per judgment dated 09-07-2015 in W.P. (C) No. 20511/2015 held that, the appellant can be saddled with liability only from 29-10-2014 to pay the interest and further directed the appellant to pay the amount in 4 equal monthly installments. The judgment dated 09-07-2015 in W.P.(C)No.20511/ 2015 was challenged before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by the KSEB as W.A.No.1330/2014 and the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed by the KSEB and directed to reconsider the entire matter. Again the appellant filed RP.No.55/2017 against the judgment dated 07-10-2016 in W.A. No.1330/2014 and the Division Bench allowed the review and directed to grant the benefit of the Board Order dated 17-02-2012 to settle the entire liability. Accordingly the respondent issued a demand notice to the appellant, demanding a sum of Rs. 21,13,492/-. The appellant filed an objection against this demand and considering the objection the demand was reduced to Rs. 17,12,123/- by the respondent. There upon the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF, Ernakulam, which was disposed of, by directing the respondent to collect the arrear amount excluding the compounding interest and to allow one time settlement as ordered by the Hon. High Court, vide order No. OP73/2017-18 dated 31-03-2018. Aggrieved by the order of the CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Forum. Since in this case, the grievance has arisen out of the detection of unauthorized load and the penal assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is clear that the petition itself is not maintainable before the CGRF or the Electricity Ombudsman as per the KSERC Regulations. That is any dispute or complaints pertaining to such matters are not maintainable before the CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman, as per Clause 2(1)(f)(vii)(1) of KSERC (CGRF & Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005. The Hon High Court of Kerala has also made it clear in the Catholic Reformation Literature Society Vs. KSEB [2011 (1) KHC 457] that, when there is specific provisions in the Act itself, to hear such cases, the same are excluded from the purview of CGRF and hence before the Electricity Ombudsman. Hence I decide that the Appeal Petition filed before this Authority by the appellant is not maintainable. The appellant is free to approach the licensee for a one time settlement or to file an appeal against the final assessment of the Assessing Officer, under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellants’ stands disposed of with the said decisions. No order on costs.
P/033/2018 - Sri. Ramaswamy Ernakulam


The appellant, Sri Ramaswamy, is having domestic service connection with consumer number 10466 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Njarakkal. The appellant complained to the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the Kerala State Electricity Board, Ernakulam that he has not consumed the energy as shown in bill for 06/2017 for the consumption shown as 2067 units billed amounting to Rs.15099/-, which are exorbitantly high. The Forum, vide order in OP No. 83/2017-18 dated 28-03-2018, had directed the respondent to revise the bill for the months of 4/2017 to 6/2017 based on the data downloaded from the energy meter. Aggrieved by this order of the CGRF, the Appellant has submitted this appeal before this Forum. From the analysis done above and the conclusions arrived at, I take the following decisions. From the conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I am fully convinced that the request of the appellant is reasonable and hence admitted. I decide that the bill amounting to Rs. 15099/- issued for 2067 units to the appellant is set aside. The respondent is directed to reassess the consumption for the period from 25-02-2017 to 27-06-2017 as 1013 units based on the average consumption of 253.25 units monthly and to revise the bill by taking action to refund the excess amount collected for 1054 units accordingly. The respondent shall issue the revised bill to the consumer within fifteen days time on receipt of this order and adjust the excess amount in the future bills of the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the Consumer is allowed as ordered and stands disposed of as such. No order on costs.

Contact Us

Charangattu Bhavan,
Building No-36/895,
Mamangalam- Anchumana Road,
Edappally- P O.Kochi 682024, KERALA,
Phone#  +91 484 2346488

Any Queries?

Send an email to

Do you Know?

Consumers should submit  petitions to CGRF first before appealing Ombudsman.

Visitors Counter