Downloads
Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 132 of 427
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 1280
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
Files:
P/095/2019 Sri. Rajan C.T. Kozhikode

Download 
Download
The appellant, Sri. Rajan C.T. is the LT consumer with consumer number 8390 under commercial tariff under Electrical Section, Melady. The appellant is running a tea shop by name, Rajan Tea Shop for the last 30 years in the shop room Nos. 3/216 possessed by Sri Kelu P.K The above buildings have already been acquired by the Government for widening national high way. On receiving the notice from the Koyilandy Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (National Highway), Koyilandy, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Melady has given notice to the appellant/building owners that the electric connections concerned will be disconnected after 15 days from the date of notice i.e., 28/09/2019. Aggrieved against this, the appellant approached the CGRF, Kozhikode and the CGRF in its order dated 16-11-2019 in OP No. 89/2019-20 held that KSEB Ltd is bound to obey the direction issued by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (National Highway) to disconnect the supply of the appellant’s premises as per the regulation 138(f) of the Supply Code 2014 and also dismissed the petition submitted by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order of CGRF, the appellant has filed the Appeal Petition, before this Authority on 29-11-2019. The request of the appellant shall not be admitted on the basis of the above regulations. The remedy available for the appellant is to approach the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (National Highway), Koyilandy. Considering the above facts and regulations, the appeal petition is dismissed.
P/085/2019 Dr. Jameela C Kasaragod

Download 
Download
The appellant is the owner and registered HT consumer of the premises with consumer No. LCN 32/6061 of Electrical Section, KSEB, Padannakkad. Even though the building was constructed for the purpose of running a hospital, the same could not be started functioning at any point of time. The premises were let out to the Central University of Kerala for functioning their educational institution. It is an educational institution under the Central Government. The university has been remitting the entire bills issued by the KSEB without any default, for the appellant. The tariff assigned to the appellant was HT II B categorised for hospital and the University had been remitting the current charge bills under this tariff regularly. This mistake has not been corrected by the KSEB, in spite of repeated requests. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a petition before the CGRF, Kozhikode in petition no. OP 71/2019-20. The CGRF disposed of the petition vide order dated 24-10-2019 that “the petitioners claim for arrear amount due to retrospective implementation of revised tariff is not sustainable as per existing rules. It is observed that the Central University who is said to have occupied the premises, vacated during 10/2018. At the time of applying for tariff change by the petitioner, i.e., from HT II B applicable to hospital to HT II A applicable to educational institution, the premises was not occupied by any one, so the purpose of supply could not be categorised under any of the two. Hence the decision of the licensee to continue the tariff initially assigned during the disconnected period from 11/2018 to 04/2018 is found in order.” Against the decision of the Forum, the appellant has filed the Appeal petition before this Authority on 13-11-2019. From the analysis done above and the conclusions arrived at, this Authority takes the following decisions. Under the provisions of Regulations 97 and 134 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, I am fully convinced that the request of the appellant is reasonable and justifiable. Hence this Authority decide that the order of the CGRF stands quashed. The excess amount collected from the appellant by way of hospital tariff HT II B for the period from 04/2014 to 10/2018, shall be refunded by the respondent by adjusting the same at tariff under educational purpose HT IIA. The refund shall be made within 30 days of receipt of this order with applicable interest. The amount of refund so calculated may also be communicated to the appellant with details. The appellant shall remit the fixed charge amount of Rs.98818/- within a period of 15 days 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 to this extent. The order of CGRF, Kozhikode in Petition No. OP/71/2019-20 dated 24-10-2019 is set aside. No order on costs.
P/096/2019 Sri. Mohan Rajan Kottayam

Download 
Download
Sri Mohan Rajan, the appellant in Appeal Petition No. P/075/2018, 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 appeal petition before this Authority. As directed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala, the subject case is re-examined and after obtaining further basic data used for the preparation of demand charges, the following modifications in the order in Appeal Petition No. P/075/2018 dated 26-11-2018 is ordered considering the facts analysed as above. It is decided to quash the belated surcharge for Rs. 3,793/- and the respondent shall issue a fresh bill for Rs. 22,511/- (Rs. 26,304/- - Rs. 3,793/) within 15 days of receipt of this order. Since the respondent has adjusted the security deposit amount Rs. 17,408/-towards the regular energy charge for 3/2014 and 4/2014 amounting to Rs. 13,615/- and belated surcharge for Rs. 3,793/- from 4/2014 to 12/2014, the refund of security deposit ordered is also set aside. 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, as ordered in P/075/2018. The order issued in P/075/2018 dated 26-11-2018 is revised and modified as ordered above to this extent.
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_counterToday1776
mod_vvisit_counterAll5344438