Downloads
Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 224 of 422
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 1265
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
Files:
P/017/2017 Sri Mithelesh Murali, Pathanamthitta- 689645

Download 
Download
The appellant, Administrator of MGM., Muthoot Medical Centre, Pathanamthitta had applied for a HT power connection to the Muthoot Nursing College and Ladies Centre, Pathanamthitta at the precinct of MGM Muthoot Medical Centre for contract demand to an extent of 130 kVA. The appellant remitted Rs.10/- and Rs. 10,000/-, towards application fee and advance amount respectively on 06-12-2012. The appellant had remitted an amount of Rs. 18,89,000/- towards the estimate cost for laying of 380 metre UG cable and constructing 360 metre 11 kV OH line in distribution side and Rs. 15,60,000/- towards the estimate cost for transmission part of the work on 11-12-2013, as demanded by the respondent. After completion of the work, the supply was provided on 13-05-2015. Aggrieved by the collection of Rs. 34,49,000/-, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kottarakkara with a request to refund Rs. 34,49,000/- collected less the reasonable expenses incurred for the tapping arrangements for11 kV electricity from the nearest 11 kV distributing main in front of the premises and the expenses for supervision charges for drawing 11 kV service line cable provided by the appellant, along with interest at twice the bank rate with effect from the date of collection of amount until refund. The CGRF disposed the petition vide Order No. OP 83/2016 dated 30-12-2016, ordering that the respondent shall collect the actual expenses incurred for giving power supply from substation to the DP structure and refund the balance amount if any within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Challenging the decision of the CGRF, the appellant approached this Authority by filing this appeal petition. From the analysis done and the findings and conclusions arrived at, which are detailed above, I observe the following and take the following decisions. 1) The appellant remitted Rs. 18.89 Lakhs for laying 380 metre HT UG cable and constructing 360 metre 11 kV OH line in distribution side and 15.60 Lakhs for erecting 11 kV VCB & new coupler panel and allied works in transmission side for giving 130 kVA power. 2) The estimate was prepared by the respondent and the amount remitted by the appellant before 31-03-2014, during the application period of Supply Code, 2005. 3) The estimate for the distribution work was revised later, after 01-04-2005, and no realization of additional amount was made. 4) There was no revision of estimate in the transmission side. 5) Execution of work both in distribution and transmission were not in accordance with the estimate prepared for the purpose. 6) The actual works executed both in transmission and distribution sector were not evaluated. 7) The applicant has not requested for an exclusive feeder. As the work was executed not in accordance with the original estimate or revised estimate and an exclusive feeder was not constructed from the substation to the premises of the appellant, the evaluation-cum-cost report shall be prepared. The final accounts of each work, for which amount has been collected by KSEB to provide the electric supply to the appellant, may be prepared and the actual cost estimate be arrived at, incorporating the revisions as ordered above by this Forum, within three months of this order and the same shall be communicated appellant. The excess amount if any shall be refunded with interest. The Order No. OP 83/2016 dated 30-12-2016, of CGRF (South), Kottarakkara, stands modified to this extent. Having decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is disposed of with the said decisions taken and issued. No order as to costs.
P/040/2017 Sri Sajive Manjila, Palakkad.

Download 
Download
The appellant Sri Sajive Manjila, is an LT three phase consumer of electricity with No. 5871 under Electrical Section, Kunissery and is the Chairman of the firm, M/s Manjilas Food Tech Pvt. Ltd. The connection was said to be given under LT IV A – industrial tariff based on the application and certificate produced by the Applicant for a rice mill having manufacturing process. The registered connected load of the consumer is 133 kW with a Contract Demand of 120 kW. While being so, an inspection was conducted in the consumer’s premises on 20-09-2016 by the APTS, Palakkad of KSEB. It was detected in the inspection that no manufacturing process in the premises and a mahazar was also prepared noting down the anomalies found there. Since the tariff for a mill without manufacturing process comes under LT VIIA‐commercial, a short assessment bill for of Rs. 5,23,323/‐, was prepared to recover the revenue loss occurred, due to the difference in the tariff rate between the LT VII A ‐ commercial and LT IV ‐ industrial tariff and served on the consumer. Being aggrieved by the short assessment bill and the change of tariff of his unit, the consumer filed a petition before the CGRF, Northern Region, Kozhikode, and the same was got dismissed vide Order OP No.114/2016-17 dated 03-03-2017. Aggrieved by this Order, the appellant has filed the Appeal Petition before this Authority. In view of the above discussions, order of the CGRF, Northern Region, Kozhikode vide OP No.114/2016-17 dated 03-03-2017 is modified by limiting the assessment of wrong classification of tariff for a period of 12 months as per Regulation 97(5) of Supply Code, 2014, under LT VII A tariff. The appellant is also free to approach the respondent for reclassification of tariff on the basis of present activities and the respondent shall take proper action in the application under Regulation 98 of Supply Code, 2014. Appeal is allowed to the extent as ordered above and disposed accordingly. No order as to costs.
P/36/2017 K.M. Mohandas, Thrissur.

Download 
Download
The appellant is a registered consumer with consumer no. 8459 C under the electricity distribution licensee, Thrissur Corporation. The LT service connection given to the appellant on 30-04-1990 and it was converted to HT connection with effect from 07-04-2014. Initially the LT supply was given from a transformer having capacity of 250 kVA under minimum guarantee scheme agreement on condition that a sum of Rs. 5,406/- payable by every month for a period of 8 years. The appellant had remitted Rs. 11,550/- on 10-10-1998 and Rs. 5,59,741/- on 30-11-2012 as security and additional security deposit respectively. The respondent had dismantled the old outdoor transformer and shifted to another location, on commissioning the HT indoor transformer in the premises of the appellant. The appellant had demanded refund of the security deposit made by him towards the LT connection and also the cost of LT transformer which was installed at his expenses. Further appellant has stated that for shifting the old transformer to the new location, laying the cables including earth works and other associated connected works, the total amount was paid by the appellant which also to be repaid. The appellant approached the respondent with a request to refund the following amounts with interest vide a number of letters. Cost of transformer = Rs. 5,18,976/- Amount paid by way of security deposit = Rs.6,09,291/- The cost incurred for cabling and shifting of existing transformer to the new location = Rs. 7,55,929/-. Their request was not considered by the respondent, the appellant had submitted a petition dated 08-02-2016 directly to this Authority without approaching the CGRF, Thrissur Corporation as per the existing rules. The appellant was informed by this Authority that since the Thrissur Corporation filed WP © No. 26882 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala against the orders dated 29-12-2015 issued in appeal petition No. P/127/2015 and order dated 06-06-2016 in review petition No. P/127/2015, this office is not in a position to take any action in this regard. Challenging this, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P. (C) 6771 of 2017. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, on 01-03-2017, directed the 1st respondent i.e., this Authority to consider the representation made at Ext. P1 within a period of three months, with notice, after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Accordingly notices were issued to the appellant and the respondent and heard both parties on 25-05-2017 and 02-06-2017. In view of the above discussions, it is decided to reject the request of the petitioner for the cost of transformer and shifting charges. Here in this case, a Writ Petition is seen filed by the respondent, Thrissur Corporation before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide W.P. (C) 26882 of 2016 and is pending for its decision. Hence it is further decided that the request of the petitioner for the refund of Security Deposit is subject to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the said Writ Petition. The respondent will consider the request for refund of the security deposit on the basis of the disposal of the writ petition filed by them. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of accordingly. Having concluded and decided as above it is ordered accordingly. 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_counterToday2266
mod_vvisit_counterAll5040377