Downloads
Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 232 of 422
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 1265
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
Files:
REVIEW PETITION NO. P/058/2016 Sri. C.P. Paul Ernakulam

Download 
Download
The review appellant is running a hotel in the name and style ‘Paulson Park Hotel’ having consumer number 5481 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam. On 5-9-2001, the review appellant had submitted an application before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, College, Ernakulam for conversion of existing LT service connection to HT, after remitting the required application fee and after complying with all necessary formalities. The review appellant had executed an OYEC agreement with the Assistant Executive Engineer for the HT supply on 03-05-2002 and remitted an amount of Rs. 2,84,400.00 towards cash deposit for power allocation to the extent of 180 kVA with a contract demand of 150 kVA as per the application submitted for HT supply. The grievance of the review appellant is that the inordinate delay to provide HT service connection had resulted in bringing to a halt of functioning of the hotel, which consequently resulted in default in payment of electricity charges and subsequently dismantlement of connection. The review appellant approached the CGRF requesting to treat him as a deemed HT consumer with effect from 05-09-2001 till dismantling of the service and further claiming a sum of Rs.1,63,71,357.00 towards loss and damages suffered by the appellant on account of non conversion of the service connection from LT to HT category. But the CGRF dismissed the petition as it is found no merit in the contentions of the review appellant; vide order no. 30/2006-07 dated 10-12-2007. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CGRF the review appellant filed appeal petition before this Authority which was disposed of with a direction to treat the review appellant as deemed HT consumer with effect from 08-02-2003 to 16-05-2006 vide order No. 02/2008 of 14-3-2008. In the review petition nothing is pointed out which escaped the notice of this Authority while disposing the appeal 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. The Hon’ble High Court in the common judgment dated 27-11-2013 in WP (C) Nos. 20445 and 26745 of 2008 have directed this Authority to dispose of Appeal Petition No P/002/2008 afresh. Accordingly this Authority has considered the reliefs sought for in the original appeal filed by the appellant in P/002/2008 and disposed of the case. Now the relief claimed in the review petition is for a different matter. If the review appellant is aggrieved by the order of this Authority, it is free for him to challenge that order before the appropriate authority. Here there is no mistake apparent on the face of records is pointed out or anything which was not brought out before this Authority when the case was decided so as to review the order. 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 as there is no cause or sufficient reason established by the review appellant, for the review of the order already issued. Hence the review petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
P/090/2016 Sri. Abdul Razak Aanathan Malappuram.

Download 
Download
The appellant, Sri Abdul Razak Aanathan, is having a 3 phase service connection issued for industrial purpose, under Electrical Section, Valluvambram, Malappuram, with consumer No: 11392. The appellant’s industry is named as ‘AMH Rice, Flour and Oil Mill’ and having a connected load of 11490 Watts. While being so, the appellant made a written complaint to the Assistant Engineer to test the meter as the energy meter was recording abnormal consumption. Accordingly the meter was tested by installing a standard reference meter and found that the existing meter is recording more than the actual consumption. So the meter was replaced with a new one on 19-01-2016. The energy usage in subsequent months after 1/2016 also showed considerable decrease in consumption. The CGRF, Kozhikode, before whom the petition was filed by the appellant to get his bills revised from 6/2014 onwards and refund of excess amount collected, has ordered to revise the monthly bills during the period from 05/2015 to 01/2016 on the basis of average of 3 billing cycles after the replacement of faulty meter, vide Order No. 67/2016-17 dated 15-10-2016. The appellant is challenging the above decision of the CGRF especially on the period of billing from 05/2015 to 01/2016 and now demands the revision of bills with effect from 6/2014 to 01/2016. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 15th day of October 2016 in OP No: 67/2016-17 of CGRF, Kozhikode, this appeal petition is filed before this Authority. In view of the above facts, this Authority didn’t find any reason to intervene with the findings of the Forum in this regard. However, the respondent is directed to refund the amount with interest at bank rate as per Regulation 134(3) of Supply Code, 2014. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The order of CGRF in OP No. 67/2016-17 dated 15-10-2016 is modified to the extent as ordered. No order as to costs.
P/085/2016 Sri. K. Ramakrishnan, Thrissur.

Download 
Download
The appellant, Sri. K. Ramakrishnan, is the Managing Director of M/s Enarc Constructions having a service connection with consumer No. 18148 for a connected load of 3 kW under Electricity Wing, Thrissur Corporation. It is alleged that the respondent increased huge amount from the bill dated 14-06-2012 onwards. In addition to the actual energy charges the respondent had collected an amount of Rs. 18,000.00 to Rs. 20,000.00 and the appellant remitted the same. So, the appellant had submitted an application on 04-11-2015 to the Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation regarding the discrepancy in the electricity bill. As there was no reply, the appellant again sent a reminder on 19-12-2015. But as nothing was happened, the appellant lodged a complaint before the CGRF, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation, on 15-02-2016 with a request to refund the excess amount collected from him. The CGRF had ordered that the bill issued by the respondent is as per Regulation 27 (A) of Supply Code, 2005 and is in order. Hence found that the appellant is liable to remit the penal charges up to 01-04-2014. It was also ordered that as the licensee failed to comply with Regulation 153 (7) of Supply Code, 2014, the respondent is directed to refund the excess amount collected from the appellant after from 01-04-2014 by adjusting against his future bills. In compliance with the order, the respondent revised the assessment for the period up to 01-04-2014 and issued a short assessment bill for Rs. 12,895.00. Feeling aggrieved by this, the appellant has submitted this appeal petition before this Authority with a request to refund the excess amount collected. In view of the above findings, the excess amount collected during the period from 14-06-2012 to 07-10-2015 and the additional amount of Rs. 12,895.00 demanded towards the penal charges for the alleged unauthorized additional load is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Hence the respondent is directed to refund the excess amount already collected from the appellant by way of penal charges with interest at bank rate as per Regulation 134(3) of Supply Code, 2014. This shall be done at any rate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The order No, CGRF/TCED/7071 dated 20-07-2016 of CGRF, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation is modified to the extent as ordered above. 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_counterToday2627
mod_vvisit_counterAll5040737