Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 2 of 262
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 784
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format
P/081/2018 - Dr. Shaheen C., Malappuram


The appellant approached the respondent for shifting an electric pole situated in his property. Since no action was taken in the matter, the appellant approached the CGRF with the request for shifting the pole from his property to the PWD area, which was disposed of by order dated 23-08-2018 as “(1) The respondent shall shift the electric pole situated in the property of the petitioner to the proposed location under deposit work within the stipulated time. (2) The respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner to shift the pole within his property, subject to the feasibility, so as to reduce the expenditure”. Hence this appeal is against the order dated 23-08-2018 of CGRF, Kozhikode, in the OP 46/2018-19, filed before it. 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, Kozhikode in this case and hence the order of CGRF OP No. 46/2018-19 dated 23-08-2018 is upheld. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order on costs.
P/080/2018 - Sri. Jaimon James, Kottayam


The appellant was a LT consumer who was running a metal crusher industry named Vallithottathil Industries, with consumer number 7820 under Electrical Section, Kidangoor. The electric connection was taken by installing a transformer of capacity 160 kVA under Minimum Guarantee basis valid for 7 years i.e. for the period from 19-11-2009 to 18-11-2016. As per the MG agreement executed by the appellant, he is liable to pay Rs.96032/- (Rupees Ninety six thousand and thirty two only} per annum up to 18-11-2016. Thereafter a new HT connection with transformer of 250 kVA capacity by replacing the 160 kVA was installed at the expenses of the appellant. The appellant had submitted a request on 01-12-2017 for refund of amount after depreciation of 160 kVA transformer which was removed by the Board. The request was rejected by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Pala. This LT connection was dismantled on 09-03-2018 on request from the appellant. Being not satisfied with the decision of the Deputy Chief Engineer, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara, with Petition No. OP 80/2018 and the Forum dismissed the petition, vide order dated 14th August 2018. Still not satisfied by the decision of the CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal 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, Kottarakkara in No. 80/2018 dated 14-08-2018 is upheld. No order as to costs.
P/069/2018 General Secretary, Ponnani Chamber of Commerce, Malappuram


The appellant is the General Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, Ponnani and represents a group of 12 LT industrial consumers under Electrical Section, Ponnani. The Audit team of Regional Audit Officer, Tirur conducted an inspection during the period from 25-09-2017 to 31-10-2017 and found that the consumers were issued with undercharged bills from 1/4/2014 to 31/3/2017. Accordingly the consumers were issued with short assessment bills. Aggrieved by this, the appellant had approached the CGRF (NR) by filing a petition in OP No. 189/2017-18. The Forum analysed that there was a short realization of revenue in both the current charges and OYEC-ECSC charges and directed the respondent to review the short assessment bills for short collection in current charges and OYEC-ECSC charges and to prepare fresh short assessment bills for each consumer. Aggrieved against this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, the respondent is directed to limit the period of reassessment and revise the bills of all the consumers except Consumer No. 61 for the period of 24 months prior to the month of 12/2016. There is no revision of period in the case of Consumer No. 61. 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. The order of CGRF in 189/2017-18 dated 09-07-2018 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