Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 6 of 262
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 784
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format
P/072/2018 Sri. Manmathan Nair S, Alappuzha


The appellant, Sri Manmathan Nair S. is having electricity service connection with consumer number 1145686013938 under Electrical Section, Krishnapuram. The service connection was effected on 25/08/1997 in single phase for domestic purpose with connected load 150 watts. According to the appellant, his average bimonthly consumption was around 190 units only. Being so, he was served with an exorbitant bill for an amount of Rs. 1596.00 alleging that the average bimonthly consumption is 350 units. The appellant approached the CGRF, Ernakulam with a complaint to refund the excess amount collected from him. But the CGRF has quashed the impugned bill and directed the respondent to revise the bill during the month of 12/2017 based on the average of 285 units, vide order No. CGRF–CR/Comp.07/2018-19 dated 31-07-2018. Still aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above and the conclusions arrived at, I take the following decision. In view of the factual position I don’t find any reason to interfere with the findings and decision taken by the CGRF, Ernakulam in this case and hence the order of CGRF No. CGRF–CR/Comp.07/2018-19 dated 31-07-2018 is upheld. The appeal is found devoid of any merits and hence dismissed. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order on costs.
P/071/2018 Smt. Sreekala Mohan, Kollam


The grievance of the appellant is against the shifting of an11 kV electric pole to her property by the respondent which stood outside of compound wall of her property, without any consent. She alleges that the electric pole was shifted to her property without her consent and knowledge which has caused damage to her property and make obstruction for construction of building in the property. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kottarakkara, which was dismissed vide order No. OP/56/ 2018 dated 16-07-2018. Not satisfied with the order of the Forum, the appellant approached this Authority with this appeal. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I take the following decision. 1. The shifting of the 11 metre ‘A’ pole to the road side will reduce the vertical clearance of the 11 kV line between the poles erected on either portions of the existing disputed pole. This may create complaints from other affected parties. The main grievance of the appellant is the erection of said pole in her property without her consent or knowledge. As such it will be better to approach the District Magistrate by the appellant for the remedy, if she desires, since the other property owners are objecting the shifting which cause the reduction of vertical clearance of the 11 kV line resulting safety problems. 2. The respondent shall refund the application fee subject to the decision, if any, of the District Magistrate. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The order of CGRF, Kottarakkara in Petition No. OP/56/2018/dated 16-07-2018 is modified to this extent. No order on costs.
P/070/2018 Sri. K.P. Davis ,Thrissur.


The appellant is a commercial consumer under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section Venkidangu having Consumer No B.438 and B.402. The service connection having Consumer No B.402 was dismantled years back. The appellant was given an additional bill of excess consumption for Rs.2335 for the year pertains 1998-99. Another complaint of the appellant is that the respondent has not paid the refund of security deposit on dismantling the connection no. B402. The appellant approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum with a prayer lo refund of the excess amount collected on Consumer No B.438 and security deposit on the dismantled con No B.402 with interest and compensation. The Forum dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction, vide order dated 30-06-2018. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the analysis done above, this Authority have reached to the conclusion that in the light by the provision under Clause 22 (d) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005, which restricts the maintainability of the petition filed for the same cause of action and relief, the Appeal Petition filed by Sri. Davis, the appellant, regarding the request for refund of Rs. 2,335/- towards electricity charges collected during the period from 03/98 to 03/99 on consumer number B438 need no further action at this Authority and hence stands dismissed. Another request of the appellant is the refund of the security deposit of consumer number B402. The appellant produced a copy of a receipt vide No.39 dated 12-02-2004 pertains to consumer number B402 for Rs. 80/- towards the bimonthly energy charge. The service was dismantled on 16-06-2005. The appellant’s claim for refund of security deposit is not challenged by the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent shall take up the matter of security deposit to the higher authorities of the Licensee on the strength of the receipt and to refund a reasonable deposit with interest from the date of dismantling, since no records available with the respondent. 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 this extent. The order of CGRF, Central Region in Petition No. OP/146/2017-18/dated 30-06-2018 is modified to this extent. 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