Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 5 of 262
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 784
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
P/079/2018 Sri. Gangadharan Nair, Kozhikode


The service connection bearing consumer No. 6653, under KSEBL Kunnamangalam Section, was originally stand registered in favour of Sri Gangadharan Nair under domestic tariff. The connection was disconnected on 16-09-2017 due to non payment of electricity bill and later reconnected on 22-09-2017 on the strength of balance CD amount at his credit. The appellant again made default in payments and hence disconnected on 16-10-2017 and later dismantled on 02-06-2018. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not issued a notice either through post or in person before dismantling the connection. The appellant aggrieved by this, approached the CGRF, Kozhikode praying for re-effecting the connection. The Forum dismissed the petition vide Order OP No. 49/2018-19 dated 23-08-2018 and directed the respondent to refund Rs.100/-, the reconnection fee realized from the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the CGRF, the consumer has filed the Appeal Petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above and the conclusions arrived at, I take the following decision. The non-remittance of energy charge by the appellant in time is the reason for dismantling, but the dismantling of the service connection was effected without obeying the required procedures as per the Supply Code, 2014. As such both the respondent and the appellant are equally responsible for the present situation. Hence it is decided that 50% of the ECSC charge for the fresh single phase service connection shall be met by the respondent and the remaining portion by the appellant. Application fee and CD for the connection shall also be collected from the appellant. The reconnection fee Rs.100/- realized by the respondent shall be refunded/adjusted. The respondent shall give a new connection within one month from the date of receipt of application from the appellant on complying with the above mentioned decision. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is found having some merits and is allowed to the extent ordered. No order on Costs.
REVIEW PETITION No. RP/07/2018 IN APPEAL PETITION No. P/036/2018 Sri. Aneesh Chandran Kollam


The appellant had filed an appeal petition number P/036/2018 before this Authority, being aggrieved at the inaction of KSEBL to shift the transformer erected in front of his property situated under Electrical Section, Thevalakkara. The appellant alleges that due to the installation of transformer, he finds difficulty to enter the property. Though the appellant had approached the officers of KSEBL and District Collector for shifting the transformer, his grievance is not yet settled. The appellant has filed petition before the CGRF, Kottarakkara vide Petition No. OP No. 31/2018 and the CGRF has dismissed it by order dated 14-05-2018, as a case on same subject matter is pending before the District Collector. The Appeal petition was disposed of by upholding the orders issued by the CGRF, vide order dated 20-08-2018. No glaring mistake or apparent errors on the face of record, on the order dated 20-08-2018 of this Authority, in Appeal Petition No. P/036/2018, were pointed out by the appellant here. 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. In view of the above discussions, I hold that review petition is not maintainable as this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued. Hence the review petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
P/076/2018 Sri. Malakkal Sreekumar, Thiruvananthapuram


The appellant approached the CGRF with a complaint seeking immediate steps to shift a transformer from the existing position by the respondent so as to avoid accidents. But the Forum found that the disputed transformer was erected three metre away from the public road and such a way that there was no obstruction to movement of men and material and general public and also held that the petition is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, vide OP NO.81/2018 dated 14-08-2018. Against the order of the CGRF, the appellant filed this petition before this Authority. Considering the above facts and legal provisions pertaining to the issue this Authority is of the considered view that the petition is not maintainable before this Authority. So, the appeal petition stands dismissed as it is found having no merits. The order of CGRF in No. 81/2018 dated 14-08-2018 is upheld. No order as to 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