Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 4 of 262
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 784
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman in pdf format
P/075/2018 Sri. Mohan Rajan, Kottayam


Sri Mohan Rajan, the appellant, had obtained a 3 phase Electric connection with consumer No. 14332 in Electrical Section, Gandhi Nagar under MG (Minimum Guarantee) scheme on 10-03-2008 with a connected load of 38 kW, for running a pipe manufacturing unit under LT-IV industrial tariff. The MG period for which the consumer is bound to pay the minimum amount as per the Agreement was for seven years from 3/2008. The appellant stopped the unit in 2014. The appellant had remitted MG amount up to 02/2014 only and submitted an application for disconnection of the electric service connection on 03-07-2014 since he faced difficulty to run the factory and finally the service was dismantled on 17-11-2014. In order to realize the arrear amount and the balance MG amount a notice was served to the consumer on 11/09/2014 for Rs. 86,443/-. The consumer challenged the arrear before the Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum (South) by filing OP No. 1275/2014 and the CGRF by its order dated 03/02/2015 directed to reassess the impugned amount subject to the self remuneration condition of the line and transformer. The impugned bill for Rs. 86,443/- was revised to Rs. 26,304/- excluding the MG amount of Rs. 60,139/- which includes demand charges for Rs. 25,830/-, meter rent Rs. 474/- and surcharge Rs. 14,993/-. Against the bill the consumer again approached the CGRF and the Forum quashed the bill issued to the appellant and directed KSEBL to revise the bill excluding surcharge portion. Accordingly after waiving surcharge amount, a revised bill was issued to the appellant on 14/06/2018 for Rs. 26,304/-. Against the bill again the appellant approached the CGRF with a review petition and the same was rejected by the Forum on 4/8/2018. Not satisfied with the decision of the CGRF, the appellant filed this appeal petition before this Forum. This Forum intends to look into the facts of any ‘over payment’ and whether he is eligible for relief if any. The service was found dismantled on 17-11-2014. The MG period expires on 02/2015 and the appellant remitted the MG amount up to 02/2014. The Line and Transformer (erected under MG scheme) is not in use by appellant and not required in future. A total number of 127 consumers were given connections from the transformer and the line so far. As per rules, the Assistant Executive Engineer shall review whether the line has become self remunerative, if the minimum guarantor give an application for termination of minimum guarantee agreement considering the details of total consumers connected from the line. The KSEBL is not supposed to penalize the consumer once the MG line has become self remunerative. In this case the respondent has not correctly assessed when the line has become self remunerative. Instead the respondent simply removed the MG amount from the short assessment bill for the months from 04/2014 to 12/2014 issued by him, without conducting review of the self remunerative period. The respondent had not submitted the relevant basic data used for the preparation of demand charge, details of self remuneration, if any, details of adjustment of security deposit. Further the meter rent shown in the statement is not reliable. Considering the above facts, the bill for Rs. 26,304/- is not sustainable and hence quashed. The respondent shall also take action to review the MG period by considering the new connections given from the transformer and Line and declare as Line self remunerative and settle the claims accordingly. The adjustment details of the Security Deposit of Rs. 19,000/- are also not furnished by the respondent. Hence the respondent is directed to refund the Security Deposit Rs. 19,000/- to the appellant with interest admissible. The appellant’s claim for surplus amount remitted under MG scheme for the period from 10-03-2008 to 01-11-2010 is not allowed. The respondent shall settle the claim within 60 days of this order, with communication to the appellant. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the consumer is found having merits and is allowed to the extent ordered. The order of the CGRF in 24/2018 dated 27-04-2018 is set aside. No order on costs.
P/077/2018 Sri. Roy George, Kottayam


The appellant, the General Manager of M/s Parayil Exports is a HT consumer with H Code LCN6/5168 under Electrical Section, Barananganam. The appellant obtained electricity originally under LT IV industrial tariff with consumer N.1850. But later in 2007, the appellant was reclassified under LT VII A category pursuant to Tariff Order 2007. Against this the appellant approached the CGRF, Ernakulam by filing complaint No. 78/2008-09 and the CGRF allowed the petition by holding that the appellant is entitled to be classified under LT IV industrial category. Later the appellant’s LT connection was converted into HT connection by enhancing the connected and an agreement in this regard was executed with the respondent on 25-08-2009. The tariff assigned to this HT connection was HT IV commercial. It is alleged that the appellant had submitted vide letter dated 3/2/2017 before the Deputy Chief Engineer requesting to change the tariff wrongly assigned to him. But the officers of the respondent have not taken any action on this request and hence the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, (southern Region), Kottarakkara on 19/05/2018, which was disposed directing the respondent to change the tariff to HT 1 industrial with effect from date of inspection of the respondent. Aggrieved by the Order No. 73/2018 dated 07/08/2018 of CGRF, the appellant has submitted this appeal before this Authority, requesting to revise all the bills issued to the appellant under HT1 industrial category from the date of giving connection under HT i.e. from 25-08-2009 and to refund the excess amount collected along with interest at bank rate. From the analysis done, the findings and conclusions arrived at which is detailed above, this Authority takes the following decision. The activity or the purpose for which the electrical energy is being used by the appellant has been found as industrial type. Hence the decision of the CGRF to assign HT I A industrial tariff category is found justifiable and is upheld. But the appellant had executed an agreement with the Licensee on 25-08-2009 for getting the supply under commercial category and not raised any objection till he submitted an application dated 3-2-2017 for reassigning the tariff category. Though the appellant claimed that on several occasions the appellant approached respondent with the request of tariff change, he had not produced any supporting evidence to establish this. Considering the above facts, it is decided that the change of tariff of the appellant from HT IV commercial to HT I A industrial shall be given from 3/2/2017 i.e. from the date of application submitted by the appellant. The respondent is directed to adjust the excess charges based on the actual amount remitted and the account of the consumer shall be adjusted within one month of this order with details of calculation for his information. The order of CGRF, Kottarakkara vide order no. 73/2018 dated 07-08-2018 is modified to this extent. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. The Appeal Petition filed by the appellant is found having merits and is allowed. No order on costs.
P/078/2018 Smt. Shajina Sajeevan, Kannur


The grievance of the appellant is against the erection of a transformer in her property by the respondent without her consent and knowledge which has caused obstruction for construction of building in the property. The appellant also alleges that a coconut tree and cashew tree were cut for the erection of the transformer by the respondent without her consent. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kozhikode, which was disposed with a direction to approach the District Magistrate for redressing the grievance vide order No. OP/7/ 2018-19 dated 14-08-2018. Not satisfied with the order of the Forum, the appellant approached this Authority with this appeal. In view of the above discussions it is hereby directed the respondent to shift the transformer from the present place of the appellant’s property to the alternate place proposed at their risk and cost. The shifting work should be carried out at any rate within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. The order of CGRF in OP No. 7/2018-19 dated 14-08-2018 is set aside. The appeal is admitted. No order as to 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