Downloads
Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 152 of 419
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 1255
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
Files:
P/010/2019 Sri. Haridasan Kozhikode

Download 
Download
The appellant is a consumer with consumer number 1167310009185 under Electrical Section, Thunery having LT I tariff. He is aggrieved by the exorbitant electricity bill dated 10-08-2018 amounting to Rs. 30,425/- for the bimonthly consumption from 12-06-2018 to 10-08-2018. The appellant approached the CGRF with a complaint against the impugned bill. The CGRF, Kozhikode has dismissed the petition on finding that earth leakage due to the inferior quality of main switch might have been the reason for the high consumption during 08/2018. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted the Appeal petition before this Authority. Actually an excess consumption was recorded by the energy meter in the disputed period, but the reason could not be ascertained correctly by the respondent during his inspection in the premises or by testing the meter in an approved laboratory. But it is a fact that there was flood and breakdowns in the distribution system in that area. From the findings and conclusions arrived at as detailed above, I decide to set aside the bill amounting to Rs. 30425/- issued to the appellant. The respondent is directed to revise the bill for the period from 12-06-2018 to 10-08-2018 by taking average consumption of three bimonthly spot bills after 21-09-2018. This shall be done at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is found having merits and is allowed. The order of CGRF, Northern Region in Petition No. OP/87/2018-19/dated 12-12-2018 is set aside. No order on costs.
P/008/2019 - Smt. Laila Sasikumar, Ernakulam

Download 
Download
The appellant is a HT 1 A industrial consumer having consumer number LCN 12/4472 under Electrical Section, Thiruvaniyoor. The appellant was received monthly bill dated 04-06-2018 amounting to Rs. 3,22,745/- which also includes an ‘undisputed arrear amount’ of Rs.1,49,592/-. The appellant had submitted an objection against the bill and requested to provide the details of arrear amount. The Special Officer (Revenue), in his letter dated 04-07-2018, has given clarification to the objection as follows. The appellant’s monthly bill dated 04-08-2014 for the month of 07/2014 was for Rs.271269/-. The last date for payment was 13-08-2014 and the appellant defaulted payment. So a disconnection notice dated 14-08-2014 issued to the appellant to the appellant demanding Rs.118079/- instead of Rs. 3,62,179/- (monthly bill amount Rs. 2,71,269/- + ACD Rs. 90,910/-). The appellant remitted Rs. 118079/- on 25-08-2014. An amount of Rs. 3600/- had been kept as advance in the account of the appellant during the month of 02/2014. Hence a short remittance of Rs. 149590/- (Rs. 2,71,269/- minus Rs. 1,18,079 + Rs. 3,600/-) noticed while reconciling the accounts of the consumer. Aggrieved by the monthly bills dated 04-06-2018 and 03-07-2018, the appellant approached the CGRF with a complaint dated 26-07-2018 requesting to cancel the demand of arrear amount of Rs.,1,96,346.67 (Rs. 1,49,592/-with interest at 18% from 13-08-2014 to 09-07-2018). The CGRF, Ernakulam has dismissed the Petition on finding that the licensee is entitled to recover the undercharged amount, vide its order No. OP 41/2018-19 dated 17-01-2019. Aggrieved by the decision of CGRF, the appellant has submitted the Appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the above 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 OP No. 41/2018-19 dated 17-01-2019 is upheld. The appellant is directed to remit the arrear amount of Rs.1,49,592/- within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and the respondent shall collect surcharge after the 30 days for default of payment, if any. As the demand of the arrear was raised on 04-06-2018, there is no question of collecting surcharge from 13-08-2014 from the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order on costs.
P/007/2019 - Sri A.M. Mohammedali, Malappuram

Download 
Download
The appellant is the Managing Partner of M/s. Mubarak Granite-Industries, West Chathalloor, Othayi, Edavanna in Malappuram Dt, was having a low tension three phase industrial service connection with consumer number 18078, under Electrical Section, Edavanna, Malappuram. The appellant has complained that the energy meter in his premises is over reading and requested that the same may be tested at TMR Division. The appellant remitted the fee for testing the meter on 12/7/2011 and the meter was tested on 22/10/2011 at TMR Division, Shornur and the test report revealed that the meter was faulty as it showed abnormal pulses on load. The appellant then represented KSEB to refund the overcharged amount from 11/2009 to 10/2011. The KSEB has prepared a calculation statement that an amount of Rs. 15,74,558/- is to be reimbursed to the appellant, as the amount collected during the meter faulty period was in excess. On 31/12/2013, the supply was dismantled due to the up gradation of the electrical connection to High Tension (HT) and thereafter the cash deposit was refunded in January 2014. But no action was taken to refund the excess amount collected, the appellant is stated to have made complaints many times for the same before the KSEB authorities. Since no steps were taken to refund the excess amount collected, the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF which was dismissed, holding that no claim either due to the licensee or due to the consumer shall be raised after dismantling service connection, vide order O.P. No. 69/2018-19 dated 18-12-2018. Aggrieved by this order of the CGRF, the Appellant has submitted this appeal before this Forum. Considering facts of the case, as it was confirmed the excess billing and the request seem to me as genuine, and under the provisions of Regulation 24 (6) of Supply Code, 2005 and Regulations 134 (3) and 145 of Supply Code 2014, I am fully convinced that the request of the appellant is reasonable and justifiable. Hence I decide that the order of the CGRF stands quashed. The excess amount collected from the appellant for the period from 11/2009 to 10/2011 shall be refunded by the respondent. The refund shall be made within 60 days of this order. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is allowed and stands disposed of as such. No order as to costs.
Back

Contact Us

KERALA ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN
D.H. Road & Foreshore Road Junction,
Near Gandhi Square,
Ernakulam, Kerala-682 016
Ph: 0484 2346488, Mob: 8714356488

Any Queries?

Send an email to info@keralaeo.org

Do you Know?

Consumers should submit  petitions to CGRF first before appealing Ombudsman.

Visitors Counter

mod_vvisit_counterToday432
mod_vvisit_counterAll5032785