Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 8 of 293
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 879
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
REVIEW PETITION No. RP 05/2019 in APPEAL PETITION No. P/045/2019 The Assistant Executive Engineer, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam


The Review Petitioner is the respondent in Appeal No. P/045/2019. The review respondent is a consumer under the Electrical Section, Aymanam under VI F tariff bearing consumer No. 13859. He has taken a Single phase connection in 2015 at the time of the construction of his house. After the completion of the construction work, the review respondent/appellant applied for load enhancement under LT 1 A domestic tariff and conversion of service connection to LT three phase, on18-07-2017. In the application, the connected load applied was 51326 Watts, but on inspection it was found that the connected load at the premises as 44 kW (leaving all unconnected equipments and plug points). On 03-01-2018, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pallom accorded sanction for an estimate amounting to Rs.12.23 lakhs for constructing 950m of 11 kV SC OH line and installing one 100 kVA transformer at the property of the review respondent/appellant for meeting the appellant’s load requirement and accordingly demand notice was issued to the appellant by the review petitioner/respondent. The review respondent /appellant was not willing to bear the expenditure required to meet his power requirement stating that the review respondent/appellant is bound to remit the expenditure only if the power requirement is above one Megawatt. Challenging the demand notice issued, the review respondent/appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Southern Region which was disposed vide Order No. OP 20/2019 dated 21-05-2019, ordering that the distribution licensee is empowered to recover the expenditure incurred for providing supply as per Regulation 32 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 and the Forum dismissed the case. Aggrieved by this, the appeal petition filed by the review respondent/appellant was found having merits and was allowed to the extent it was ordered. As per order No. P 45/2019 dated 26-08-2019, the following decisions were taken. In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal petition. The review petitioner is challenging the decision of this Authority by raising fresh arguments in the review 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. This Authority has considered all the arguments while disposing the appeal petition. A decision once rendered by a competent Authority/Court on a matter in issue between the parties after a full enquiry should not be liable to be agitated over again before the same Authority/Court. If the review petitioner is aggrieved by the order of this Authority, it is free for him to challenge that order before the appropriate upper authority. In this background, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene the order already issued. In view of the above discussions, I hold that review petition is not maintainable and hence rejected. Having decided as above, it is ordered accordingly.
P/059/2019 - Sri. Hybeen Thomas, Idukki.


The electric connection with Con. No. 19497 has been given to the appellant in LT VII A tariff with a connected load of 112kW and a contract demand of 79 kVA under Electrical Section, Chithirapuram. An inspection was conducted in the premises of the appellant by APTS, Vazhathope on 11-12-2018. A short assessment bill of Rs. 1,51,530/- was issued to the consumer based on the findings that the meter was not recording any consumption in R and Y phase. Further the respondent had shown undisputed arrears of Rs. 2,44,418/- and Rs. 2,31,097/- in the bills for 01/2019 and 02/2019 respectively by taking the consumption as 3 times the recorded energy in the meter since consumption was not being recorded in two phases. The appellant has challenged these bills in the Complaint No. 111/2018-19 filed in CGRF. The CGRF disposed the petition vide order dated 28-06-2019, ordering that the respondent shall revise the bills based on the average consumption computed from 3 billing cycles after meter replacement. Challenging the decision of the CGRF, the appellant approached this Authority by filing this appeal petition. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide as follows: The short assessment bill for Rs. 1,51,530/- issued to the appellant is quashed. The respondent shall issue revised bill for the period from 05-12-2018 to 07-02-2019 (date of rectification of defects in the metering system) based on three months average for 03/19, 04/19 and 05/19. The bill for the month of 01/2019 for Rs. 2,44,418/- and the bill for 02/2019 for Rs. 2,31,097/- is also quashed. The excess amount collected shall be adjusted in the future bills. The request of the appellant to cancel the demand as per the proceedings dated 17/05/2019 directing to remit the bill amount of Rs. 2,94,420/- is not admitted since the CGRF has not considered this issue in its order dated 28-06-2019 while disposing the petition dated 18-02-2019 filed by the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly and the Appeal Petition filed by the appellant, stands allowed to the extent ordered. The order of CGRF, Ernakulam in 111/2018-19 dated 28-06-2019 is set aside. No order on costs.
P/061/2019 - Smt. Lissy Chakko, Thrissur


The appellant is an industrial consumer having consumer number 15479 under Electrical Section Nadathara in Thrissur District. The appellant’s connected load in the premises is 22490 watts and contract demand is 26000 kVA. The complaint of the appellant pertains against the bill issued based on the meter reading taken in the month of 10/2018. The meter status of the appellant for the months of 07/2018, 08/2018 and 09/2018 were shown as ‘door locked’ and the respondent had issued average monthly bills during this period. Only after taking meter reading in 10/2018, it was noticed that huge energy consumption recorded in the meter due to earth leakage, but the respondent had billed based on the consumption by revising previous three bills from 07/2018 to 09/2018. The appellant’s request is for exemption from payment of average monthly energy charges and consumption due to earth leakage during the flood period in 2018.The CGRF, Ernakulam has disposed the petition No. 122/2018-19 filed by the appellant with the following orders. "(1) The bill shall be revised based on the average monthly consumption of 244 units. Petitioner is liable to pay the fixed charges." Still aggrieved by the order dated 28-06-2019 of the CGRF, the Appellant has filed the Appeal Petition before this Authority. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide as follows: 1. The respondent shall issue revised bills for consumption months of 06/2018 and 07/2018 in ToD billing taking the average of consumption recorded for the previous three months of 03/2018, 04/2018 and 05/2018. 2. The appellant is also exempted from average billing for 08/2018 and 09/2018 due to the flood occurred in 2018. The respondent shall be given bills for only monthly minimum charges for the months of 08/2018 and 09/2018. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly, and the Appeal Petition filed by the appellant, stands disposed of to the extent ordered. The order of CGRF, Central Region, Ernakulam in 122/2018-19 dated 18-06-2019 is set aside. 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