Overview Search Downloads Submit file Up
Category: Orders
Page 1 of 385
Order by: Default | Name | Date | Hits | [Descending]
Orders Files: 1153
Orders of Kerala Electricity Ombudsman  in pdf format
P/010/2023- Sri. Shaji M


The appellant Shri. Shaji M is a consumer under the Ramanthali Electrical Section of Licensee (KSEB). The appellant has purchased 17 cents of land for building a house in Ramanthali Panchayath. There is a pathway in the Eastern side of the property which was used as a public pathway. This pathway was later converted in to a tarred public road and it was included in the purampokku register of Ramanthali panchayath. The 4.6 m width of the eastern boundary of the said property is used as the access to the public road and this is the only access he is having to enter/exit of the public road. The Licensee has installed a post and stay wire blocking his access to the public road. This was erected purposefully by the officials of the Licensee to protect the interest of a private individual. The appellant has requested the officials of the Licensee to shift the post to another location to avoid his inconvenience, but they have not done anything. Meanwhile the appellant filed a civil case in the Munsiff Court Payyannur and got an injunction order stopping the further works of the Licensee. When the period of the injunction order expired, KSEB has completed the line works. The appellant approached the CGRF and CGRF issued order dated 31/12/2022 stating that the post is to be shifted to the new location and to be erected with concrete muffing at the cost of the Licensee. Aggrieved by the decision of the CGRF, this appeal petition was filed to the authority. Maintainability of the appeal petition The appellant had filed a petition to the Munsiff court with reference number OS/92/2021 and an interim order was issued. Vide IA/3/2021 on 30/06/2021. The period of the interim order expired on 12/07/2021 and the Licensee has completed the line work. The respondent has filed a petition to ADM, Kannur under section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and also as per the section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. The ADM has not taken any decision as the original suit is pending in Payyanur, Munsiff Court. The appellant also approached the Ombudsman of the local self-Government. From the above it is to infer that the case is pending with different legal fora for the same matter and same prayer. As per the section 22(1) (d) of the KSERC, (CGRF and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulation 2005, the ombudsman could not proceed with the petition if it is pending in any other Legal Fora. The Section 22(1) (e) “No representation to the Ombudsman shall lie in cases where a representation for the same grievance by court, tribunal or arbitrator or any other authority or a decree or award or a final order has already been passed by any such court, tribunal, arbitrator or authority.” Accordingly the Form B to be submitted to Ombudsman also have a declaration as below “The subject matter of the present complaint has not been pending/ decided by any Forum/Court/Arbitrator/ any other authority”. Then the declaration of the Form B submitted is seen to be wrong. As the case with same prayer is pending in Payyannur Munsiff court and ADM, Kannur, the further proceedings of the appeal petition could not be done as per Section 22(1) (d) of KSERC regulation 2005. Decision In view of the above, this appeal petition is dismissed here with.
P/09/2023- Smt. Savitri Amma. C


The appellant Smt. Savitri Amma is a Senior citizen and consumer of Licensee under Konni section. She is having a plot measuring 27 cents of land in her ownership which has compound wall all around with a gate. One building is existing in the southern side of the property. The 12 cents out of 27 cents in the northern side with road front around 13m length. A transformer was erected by the licensee at the centre of this 13m blocking the usage of this property. Further two stay wires were also erected in her property without the consent. The erecting stay wire in the private property is an encroachment. There is sufficient space in the northern boundary of her property to erect the transformer and other installation. If the transformer would have erected closed to the northern boundary of her land, the land would have been effectively utilized. The appellant’s requirement is that the installation has to be shifted to the northern side at the cost of the licensee. The appellant approached various levels of officers of the licensee nothing has happened. Then appellant filed petition in the CGRF. CGRF issued order stating that the appellant must approach District Collector for the decision regarding the complaint. Aggrieved with the decision of the CGRF, this appeal petition is filed to the authority. Decision Considering above facts and the regulations, the appeal petition is dismissed herewith.
P-007-2023-Smt. Rajinsa A.,


The petitioner is the consumer of the licensee under Electrical Section, Kallara with Consumer No. 1145575013774. A LT single phase overhead line has been drawn by the licensee across her property for giving service connection to the neighbour without the consent. The appellant is having 16 cents of land. There is a pathway to the neighbour and the line was drawn during 1982 with wooden post and service connection was given to the neighbour. During 2004, the appellant also availed connection from the line. The appellant visited Dubai to live with her husband during 2012 and 2016 around three months. During this time the line drawn through the pathway has been shifted to the backside of the land of the appellant in the land of neighbour. This is crossing the property of the appellant. The appellant approached CGRF as she was not getting the line removed from that position. The line is disconnected and the same is to be dismantled. The CGRF vide their order dated 06-01-2023 ordered that the appellant has to approach the ADM for the final order. Aggrieved by the order of CGRF, the appellant filed this petition to this Authority. In view of the analysis and findings the following decisions were taken. 1) The licensee has to disconnect and dismantle the service line which is drawn over the property of the appellant at the cost of the licensee. 2) The licensee has to ensure that the corresponding respondents are attending the hearing and disciplinary action is to be taken against those who are not attending the hearing or any other proceedings of the Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman as per requirement 3) No order on cost.

Contact Us

D.H. Road & Foreshore Road Junction,
Near Gandhi Square,
Ernakulam, Kerala-682 016
Ph: 0484 2346488, Mob: 8714356488

Any Queries?

Send an email to

Do you Know?

Consumers should submit  petitions to CGRF first before appealing Ombudsman.

Visitors Counter