Downloads
Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 237 of 422
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 1265
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
Files:
P/065/2016 Sri. Damodaran K Thiruvananthapuram.

Download 
Download
The appellant, Sri Damodaran K., is a commercial consumer with consumer number 1750 under Electrical Section, Puthenchantha. The grievance of the appellant is that a nearby building owner of Swapna Lodge erected a name board and an insulated wire was drawn through the outer wall of the appellant’s building for lighting the name board. As appellant’s building is more than 50 years old, the wall of the building caused crack and damage due to clamping of insulated wire with PVC pipes. So, the appellant requested to remove the said wiring, but the owner of the nearby building denied his request. Then the appellant filed a petition before the Assistant Engineer who is also failed to take any action on his request. Aggrieved against the inaction of the Assistant Engineer, the appellant filed petition before the CGRF, Kottarakkara which was dismissed due to lack of merits, vide order OP No. 89/2016 dated 12-08-2016 and hence the appellant preferred this appeal before this Authority. When the matter was taken up for disposal on 20-12-2016, the appellant was present and on the respondent’s side Smt. T.V. Asa was also present. The appellant submitted that his grievance was redressed since the insulated wire drawn through the outer wall of appellant’s building for lighting up the name board for Swapna Lodge was removed. This fact was also reiterated by the respondent. So, there is no need for any further adjudication of the issue. The only apprehension of the appellant was that there may not be any drawing of insulated wire through the outer wall of the appellant’s building by the said nearby owner of Swapna Lodge. The respondent assured that periodical surveillance will be done by the officials of the respondent in this regard. The respondent is also directed to take proper action if any violations of the rules and provisions in the Electricity Act and Supply Code by the parties concerned. Anyway, in view of the fact that the matter is settled I am not going into the merits of the rival contentions raised in the appeal. In the above circumstances the appeal is disposed of as above. The order OP No. 89/2016 dated 12-08-2016 is set aside. No order as to costs.
P/072/2016 Sri M. Muhammed Haji Kozhikode

Download 
Download
The appellant, Sri M. Muhammed Haji, is the owner of the building complex named as ‘White Lines’. The two rooms in the said building complex were given on rent to a tenant, Sri T.I. Simri who obtained a service connection in his name with consumer No. CB 10354 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section (Central), Kozhikode with the consent of the appellant. Meanwhile, the tenant vacated the rooms on 10-02-2016 and thereafter the appellant was remitting the current charges for the above service connection without fail. On 25-06-2016, the tenant Sri Simri, who is the registered consumer of the service connection has requested to dismantle the service and also demanded refund of security deposit. So, the appellant moved against the dismantling of service connection by submitting a petition before the Assistant Engineer, which was not allowed by him. Aggrieved against this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kozhikode vide OP No. 47/2016-17. But the CGRF disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent to follow the prevailing procedure for giving a fresh electricity connection to the appellant if he requests for the same. Not satisfied with the above decision of the CGRF, the appellant submitted this appeal petition before this Authority. In view of the discussions, it is concluded that the respondent is directed to change the name of the appellant on deposit of security amount afresh by the appellant as per Regulation 91(4) (f) and observing all other formalities. This shall be done at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that the security deposit remitted by Sri T.I. Simri can be refunded to him on his application if any as per the prevailing rules. The order of CGRF in OP No. 47/2016-2017 is set aside. No order as to costs.
P/083/2016 Smt. Aysha Malappuram

Download 
Download
The appellant, Smt. Aysha, is a domestic consumer with consumer number 6736 having a connected load of 200 Watts under Electrical Section, Purangu. On 29-05-2016 an inspection was conducted in the appellant’s premises, had detected that the service wire was directly connected to the output of the meter and the actual connected load of the premises was found as 2205 Watts. Based on the inspection, a penal bill for Rs. 40,309.00 was issued to the appellant after disconnecting the supply and initiated proceedings for theft of electricity as per Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. So, the appellant filed a complaint before the CGRF. It is alleged that the outsiders who had personal grudge against the appellant on certain issues had committed the offence. The appellant also suspect one line staff of KSEB in this case who demanded bribe for rectifying the supply disruption in the premises. According to the respondent, the issue of penal bill is with respect to an assessment for theft of electricity as per Section 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the CGRF is barred from entertaining such complaints in view of Regulation 2 (1) (f) (vii) (1) of the KSERC (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005. Hence the Forum held that it was improper to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved against the said order of the Forum, this appeal petition was filed. In short, the appellant herein is not entitled to file a complaint before the CGRF and this Authority against the bill raised under Section 126 of Electricity Act. If she had got strong argument against the disputed bill, she ought to have raised the same before the Appellate Authority under 127 of the Electricity Act. Such a course is the only remedy available. In the above circumstances, this Authority is of the firm view that the appeal petition is not maintainable. It is left open to the appellant to appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Act, 2003, if desires so within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 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_counterToday2620
mod_vvisit_counterAll5040731