Post on 20-Aug-2020
1 | P a g e
HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
BAYS No. 33-36, SECTOR-4, PANCHKULA- 134112,
Case No. HERC/PRO-5 of 2016
Date of Hearing : 03.08.2017
Date of Order : 03.10.2017
In the Matter of
Application-cum-Petition under section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003
and Regulation 5.5 of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Single Point Supply to Employers Colonies, Group Housing Societies
and Residential or Commercial-cum-Residential Complexes of
Developers) for Redressal of Grievance.
Petitioner 1. Shri Rachit Garg.
2. Shri Kamaljeet Balhara.
Respondent 1. Bestech (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Builder), Gurgaon
2. Park View Residency Condominium Association (RWA), Gurgaon.
3. M/s. Cushman & Wakefield Ltd
(Maintenance Agency), Gurgaon 4. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Hisar PRESENT
Sh. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner
QUORUM
Shri Jagjeet Singh, Chairman
Shri M. S. Puri, Member
Shri Debashish Majumdar, Member
ORDER
1. Brief background of the case
The Petition is filed by Shri Rachit Garg and Shri Kamaljeet
Balhara (hereafter referred as Petitioners) resident and owners of
respective apartments located in Park View Residency, Sector-3, Palam
2 | P a g e
Vihar, Gurgaon (hereafter also referred as society or complex) to which
Respondent No. 4 is supplying electricity through a Single Point
Connection. The Respondent No. 2 & 3 of the society are involved in the
metering, reading, billing and collection of electricity dues thereof from
the residents/owners/users of the society/complex. Aggrieved with the
high electricity charges, on account of electricity bills served by the
Respondent No. 2 & 3, and other related issues due to conduct of
Respondent(s) by not adhering to the Haryana Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Single Point Supply to Employers’ Colonies, Group
Housing Societies and Residential or Commercial cum Residential
Complexes of Developers) Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred as
Single Point Supply Regulation), the Petitioners have preferred this
Petition.
The Petitioners have submitted as under:
a) That the Respondent No. 1 had got sanctioned Single Point
Supply connection under Bulk Supply (Domestic) category from
Distribution Licensee (DHBVNL) to supply electricity to the
apartment owners vide Account Number : 6989270000 and K.
No. 2131001314.
b) That the Respondent No. 1 has installed dual power supply
Electric Meter (which facilitates recording of main supply and
backup supply) for supply of electricity to the apartments and
has started charging for electricity with effect from. May, 2010.
c) That the Builder i.e. Respondent No. 1 has collected cost of
meter and its installation from the residents/owners at the time
of offering possession.
d) That the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Builder handed over the
maintenance and common area to the RWA i.e. respondent
number 2 W.E.F. June 2014.
3 | P a g e
e) That the Respondent No. 2 i.e. RWA appointed the
maintenance agency i.e. M/s. Cushmen and Wakefield,
(Respondent No. 3) to provide maintenance service and common
facilities.
f) That the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Single Point Supply to Employers’ Colonies, Group Housing
Societies and Residential or Commercial cum Residential
Complexes of Developers) Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred
as Single Point Supply Regulation) were issued by Commission to
provide administration convenience to Distribution Licensees and
to minimize the harassment of individual consumers from
Discom employees so that distribution licensees may have one
point of contact for meter readings, billing and payments.
g) That a resident in a group housing society having
electricity connection under said regulation is for all purpose a
consumer under DS category and tariffs and benefits available to
person in a DS category are always applicable and available to a
resident in group housing society also.
h) That the relief/directions on following issues which
emerged out allegedly due to the conduct of Respondent(s) by not
adhering to certain aspects of Single Point Supply Regulation,
2013 and other orders, instructions, circulars, procedures issued
by Commission or by Discom is being sought:-
I. Tariff charged to the residents.
II. Dual Source Electricity Meter.
III. Interest earned on various rebates concessions, incentives,
subsidy as announced by Distribution licensee or by State
Govt.
IV. Frequent Power cuts.
4 | P a g e
i) That we are staying in our corresponding apartments since
2010. The Respondent No. 2 had been raising the electricity bills
for our apartment since July 2014 and Respondent 3 had been
distributing the bills on behest of Respondent No. 2.
j) That the Respondent No. 2 had not been raising electricity
bills as per the tariff and the procedure laid in the Single Point
Supply Regulations even after the provisions of the said
regulation were brought to their notice. Respondent No. 2 and 3
are charging from the residents as per tariff and rules and
regulation decided by them and not as per provisions of the
Regulations which is applicable when buying the electricity from
DHBVNL. They are getting supply at a tariff decided by the
Commission and selling the same electricity to residents at a
higher price to make their personal profits.
k) That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 had submitted that
electricity charges have been recovered strictly from the
residents/owners as per the payments made to Respondent No. 4
(DHBVNL) in the monthly bill issued from time to time and they
are not overcharging.
l) That the bills raised by Respondent 2 and 3 are having
following sections.
I. DHBVN supplied Electricity Unit Consumption as per the
meter.
II. DG set rates charged as per the unit consumption in the
meter.
III. Common area electricity charges calculated as per the
saleable area of the apartment.
IV. Service tax on the common area electricity charges.
m) That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are charging electricity
rates which are not as per the DHBVNL bill payments.
5 | P a g e
Ex. During November 2015, the bill amount paid to
DHBVNL is at Rs. 6.72 Per Unit (Rs. 1799252.00 Paid for
consumption of 267640 units) Whereas bills are raised by
respondent 2 and 3 are on differentiated rates ranging
between 8.2 to 14 Per Unit. These differentiated rates are not
as the tariff rates published under the procedure laid in the
Single Point Supply Regulations.
n) That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are charging DG
electricity rates at an exorbitant rate of Rs. 15-18. Per unit and
no transparency is being maintained in calculation of per unit
rates.
o) That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are charging us common
area electricity charges which have no link to our flat’s electricity
consumption. Neither there is any meter for such consumption
nor exist a measure to know the consumption per month where
the resident can verify the number of units consumed.
Respondent 2 and 3 had been charging this as per their own wits
and whims. In a case No. HERC/PRO - 09 of 2014 (Shri Pankaj
Bhalotia vs. M/s. SPR Buildtech Limited (Builder), Faridabad and
Others) commission had said
“6. Commission directs the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to levy
electricity charges from the residents of the society strictly as
per Regulation no. 5.5 of HERC Single Point Supply
Regulations (Regulation No. HERC/27/2013). The electricity
bill should clearly show the energy consumed and tariff
applicable including all the relevant details. Further,
maintenance charges/any other charges not relating to
electricity consumption should not be charged through the
electricity meter/bill. The Respondent No. 2 cannot charge
6 | P a g e
from the residents of the society more than the domestic
tariff approved by the Commission.”
p) That the Respondent number 2 and 3 are charging us
Service tax on common area electricity charges which again not
in-line with the provisions laid under single point bulk domestic
connections or as per the DHBVNL bill payments. Moreover,
Electricity, being in the negative list of service tax, is exempted
from the Service tax. i.e. No Service tax is applicable to electricity
consumption.
q) That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 had been charging
Minimum Monthly Charges from all residents/others electricity
where consumption charges computed by respondent Number 2
and 3 are less than Rs.500. There is no Minimum Monthly
Charges (MMC) applicable charges applied in the bills for our
society till date.
r) That the Respondent No. 2 and 3 had been charging
electricity reconnection charges from residents/others after
disconnecting their power supply for no reason.
s) That the electricity Meters for the apartment have not been
audited for accuracy since their installation.
t) That individual electricity meters are installed behind the
lock and keys and cannot be inspected without seeking
permission from respondent No. 1 to 3.
u) That there is no way a apartment resident/owner can know
if his electricity is running on main power (DHBVNL) or on DG
electricity. The resident(s) have no measure to reduce
consumption during DG running.
v) That the meter provided by the Respondent No. 1 is a dual
source electricity meter which has the facility to charge to
residents for main supply and back up supply via one meter. The
7 | P a g e
Respondent No. 1 to 3 disconnects electricity supply for non-
payment maintenance charge or any reasons (Not linked to
electricity payments) that too without any prior notice or
information. As per the Single Point Supply Regulation, a
GHS/developer /builder/maintenance agency/RWA acts as
intermediary only between a resident and a distribution licensee
for supply of electricity to a resident’s apartment/flat and if such
resident is regularly paying its dues towards electricity
consumption GHS/developer/builder/ maintenance agency/RWA
has no right or power to discontinue or stop supply of electricity
to his/her apartment/flat.
w) That we have raised multiple grievances via Public
Grievance portal i.e. www.harsamadhan.gov.in with DHBVNL in
past years. However, no satisfactory actions have been taken by
the respondent No. 4 so far.
x) That as per provisions of the Single Point Supply
Regulation, a resident in a Residential Colony or Group Housing
Society for all purposes will be treated as domestic supply (DS)
category consumer and hence all rules and regulations, scheme,
benefits, discount etc. with regard to domestic supply (DS)
category consumers will be applicable on such resident. Rebates,
Concession, Incentive, and Subsidy as announced by
Distribution Licensee (Respondent No. 4) or by State Government
of the Haryana and applicable on domestic supply (DS) category
consumers. However, the Respondent No. 1 and 4 had not
granted such rebate discounts during May 2013 to October 2013.
y) That there are frequent power cuts which may be
scheduled or un-scheduled. We requested the Commission to
direct Respondent No. 1 to 3 to work with the Respondent No. 4
and improve on supply of electricity to society.
8 | P a g e
z) That the petitioners have prayed as under:-
I. The Petition, in its present form, may kindly be taken on
record.
II. Condone any inadvertent omissions/errors/shortcomings
and permit Petitioner to add/change/modify/alter this
filing and make further submissions as may be required at
a future date.
III. Immediate direction to the Respondent No. 1 to 3 not to
discontinue supply of electricity to a resident’s
flat/apartment who honestly paying for electricity
consumed (though incorrect) until final judgments by the
Commission.
IV. To direct the Respondent No. 1 to 4 to follow Single Point
Supply Regulation and charge its residents as per
provisions of the said regulation and pass on credit to
individual resident for excess amount charged until change
is implemented.
V. To amend the Single Point Supply Regulation to
incorporate regulation regarding duel electricity meters,
reduction of load.
VI. To direct the Respondent No. 1 to 4 to pass on credits,
incentive, discount, concession, subsidy, rebate whatever
name it is called as applicable to a Domestic Supply (DS)
category consumer to residents of the society as such
residents are for all purposes a consumer under Domestic
Supply (DS) category and is entitled to receive and get all
such benefits.
VII. To direct respondent No. 1 to 4 to audit all the bills raised
by RWA W.R.T. the corresponding DHBVNL bills raised and
paid to the respondent No. 4.
9 | P a g e
a) Request to make this audit a time bound activity.
b) Request you to please allow petitioners also actively
participate in such audit.
VIII. To direct the respondent No. 4 to make sure that bills are
generated for all 690 apartments, 10 shops, temple,
external vendors including but not limited to Airtel mobile,
Airtel Broadband, Airtel dish, BSNL, Indusind Bank, Local
cable wala and all others as applicable.
IX. All excess money collected by respondent No. 1 to 4 needed
to be refunded back to the residents. Respondent No. 1 to 4
should be returned back with interest and with the
compensation as decided by the Commission.
X. Request you to please ask respondent No. 4 to conduct
audit for all electricity meters installed within Park View
Residency apartment complex to make sure:
a) That all meters are calibrated within prescribed limits.
b) Respondent No. 2 and 3 had been raising all required
bills as per the installed meter readings.
XI. Pass any such other order/s and/or direction/s which the
Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
XII. Please allow leave of absence to us to attend hearing and
proceedings of this petition at Panchkula, being working
professional and request commission to decide as per merit
of case and keeping interest of public at large in mind.
2. The Commission issued notice to the Petitioners & Respondents
for hearing to be held on 30.05.16. The case was heard as scheduled.
After gearing the parties the Commission vide its interim Order dated
30.05.2016 directed as under:-
“
10 | P a g e
4. After hearing the parties, the Commission directs the Petitioners to
ensure that a copy of the Petition is supplied to each of the
Respondent at the earliest.
5. The Commission allows fifteen days time to the Respondents to
furnish their reply and written submission if any.
6. The Commission further directs Respondent No. 4 to hold a
meeting with the Petitioners and other Respondents within 15
days from the date of this Order and to submit a report to the
Commission within 20 days from the date of this Order bringing
that whether the DHBVNL and RWA are charging in accordance
with the Single Point Supply Regulations. The report may also
cover the status/ compliance by RWA of the Single Point Supply
Regulations on various other issues raised in the Petition.
Petitioners during the hearing submitted that the refund of the
excess billing has yet not been made by the Respondents.
Accordingly, the report shall also include the status of refund of
excess charges made/to be made, if any, in the matter.
7. The Commission further directs DHBVNL to inform the Commission
the date of meeting in advance so that the officials concerned of
the Commission may also be deputed to attend the meeting and to
inspect the site.
”
3. Matter again heard by the Commission on 15.07.2016 as
scheduled, wherein, the Commission observed that the report as
desired by the Commission vide its interim order dated 30.05.2016 has
not been submitted by the Respondent Nigam. Accordingly, the
Commission vide interim Order dated 25.07.2016 directed as under:-
“
4. In view of the above, Commission again directs Respondent No. 4
to file the report desired in the Interim Order dated 30.05.2016 in
11 | P a g e
the matter within 4 weeks of this Order. Additionally, the
DHBVNL is directed to contact the petitioner within 7 working
days so that the matter could be dealt with appropriately in a
timely manner.
”
4. The matter was again heard on 14.10.2016. The Commission
observed that meeting between the Petitioners and Respondents has
already been concluded on 06.10.2016, however, the report on the
outcome is yet not submitted by the Respondent No. 4. The
Commission again directed Respondent No. 4 i.e. DHBVNL to file the
requisite report within two weeks. The Petitioners also sought 15 days
time to file their written reply on various pending issues.
5. The hearing in the case was again held on 11.11.2016.
Complying with the interim Orders of the Commission in the case, the
Respondent No. 4 submitted the Minutes of Meeting held on
06.10.2016 between Petitioners and Respondents. The Respondent No.
4 also apprised the Commission that both parties, the Petitioner and
the Respondent RWA, were adamant on their views as RWA is firm that
they are charging correctly whereas the Petitioners are denying the
same. The Petitioners reiterated the submissions as per its original
petition. The Petitioners raised the following issues and requested to
address the same:-
i) The electricity tariff is not being charged by RWA as per the
HERC Regulation.
ii) The service tax is being charged on the total billing including
common area maintenance (CAM) charges.
iii) The reconnection/disconnection charges are not being
recovered as per the DHBVNL sales circular.
iv) The meters have not been got tested / calibrated since its
installation by RWA.
12 | P a g e
v) The meters are under lock and key. Reading are not visible.
The meters have not been installed as per the DHBVNL sales
circular.
vi) Single bill is issued by RWA for main supply, backup supply
and common area charges. The separate billing needs to be
done for main supply consumption and disconnection of
supply may not be done on account of non-payment of any
other charges i.e backup supply and CAM charges.
Upon hearing the parties, the Commission vide its interim Order
dated 15.11.2016 directed as under:-
“
4. After hearing the parties, the Commission directed the
respondent DHBVNL to visit the site of Parkview Residency Palam
Vihar Gurgaon and hold discussion with the Petitioner as well as
RWA and give their views on the various issues raised by the
Petitioner. The Commission also directed that officers of the
Commission (Director/Technical & Technical Consultant) may also
be present at the site when DHBVNL officers visit the society.
Commission further directed DHBVNL to get the meter of the
Petitioner Sh. Rachit Garg checked for accuracy and give its report.
“
6. The matter was finally heard on 03.08.2017. The Officers of the
Commission Director/Technical & Technical Consultant of the
Commission apprised the Commission that, the site, Park View
Residency, was visited on 17.11.2016 in compliance to the
Commission’s interim Order dated 15.11.2016. The officers of the
Commission submitted the following observations on the various issues
raised by the Petitioners:-
13 | P a g e
i) Regarding charging of higher tariff rates it was observed that the
RWA is not charging the tariff from the resident as per HERC
Regulations. It was observed that as per the bill issued by the
RWA for the month of September 2015 to the petitioner, Rs. 1363/-
have been charged for consumption of 171 units, whereas it
should have been Rs. 1105/- as per HERC approved tariff
including FSA, electricity duty and municipal tax during this
period. Further, RWA was charging from NDS consumers as per
their agreement with them i.e @ Rs. 15/- per unit for the total
consumption including backup supply.
ii) Regarding installation of separate meter for common area services
it was observed that no separate meter was provided for metering
of consumption of common area services. The charges for electricity
consumption on common area i.e. street lighting, water pumps /fire
pumps and lifts etc. are included in the maintenance charges for
common area. However RWA is not providing the breakup of the
CAM charges which include the charges for electricity of the
common area (based on the electricity charges paid to the licensee
less the recovery on account of electricity charges recoverable from
the residents and other NDS consumers for supply of electricity
from licensees).
iii) Regarding charging of service tax on electricity bills @ 14%, on
scrutiny of the bill, it was observed that RWA is charging service
tax on the common area maintenance charges only. However,
these charges were being recovered through the single bill showing
electricity charges, DG supply charges, common area maintenance
charges and service tax.
iv) Regarding charging of DG supply rate it was observed that RWA
has provided metering for DG supply and charging as per
expenditure incurred in running the DG sets. Dual register meters
14 | P a g e
of Neptune make have been installed which provide reading of
main supply, DG supply and summation of the consumption from
both.
v) Regarding charging of minimum monthly charges @ Rs. 500 p.m.
from those flats which are locked, it was observed that these
charges are not as per rates given in the Discom’s circulars. The
minimum monthly charges as per tariff order are Rs. 450/- per
month for load of 5 MW (Rs. 120/- KW per month upto 2 KW and
Rs. 70 per KW per month thereafter).
vi) Regarding charging of RCO fee and installation and testing of
meters not as per DHBVNL sales circular it was observed that
RWA charges re-connection/RCO fee @ Rs. 1000/- against the
RCO fee of Rs. 100/- as per Schedule of General and
Miscellaneous Charges of the Discoms. Regarding disconnection of
supply, it was observed that RWA is issuing single bill for
recovering both electricity consumptions charges and common area
maintenance charges and they are disconnecting the supply in
case of nonpayment of total bill including common area
maintenance charges. Regarding testing of meters it has been
observed that the meters have not been tested /calibrated since its
installation.
During inspection it is observed that the electricity meters are
visible and installed as per the Discom circular. Though meters
have not been tested/calibrated since installation. The meter of Sh.
Rachit Garg will be got checked for accuracy as directed by the
Commission.
Further, RWA is issuing the single bill for recovering both electricity
consumptions charges and common area maintenance charges
and they are disconnecting the supply in case of nonpayment of
the total bill including common area maintenance charges. Further,
15 | P a g e
RWA charges re-connection/RCO fee of Rs 1000 against the RCO
fee of Rs. 100 as per schedule of General and Miscellaneous
Charges of the Discoms.”
The counsel for the Petitioners maintained its stand that the
RWA is not following HERC Orders/Regulations and still charging for
supply of electricity on its own rates.
Upon hearing the Petitioners, the Commission directed the
Petitioners to submit written submissions culling out various issues,
which are still not resolved and needs further intervention of the
Commission, along with sufficient evidence(s)/proof to substantiate the
allegations.
7. In compliance to the above directions of the Commission, the
Petitioners through its counsel submitted the written submissions vide
e-mail dated 09.08.2017 along with a copy of the latest bill issued by
the RWA. The brief of the submissions made by the Petitioners are as
under:-
i) Electricity Bills are not being charged as per HERC Regulations
which provides that RWA will not charge the residents for
electricity supplied by the distribution licensee at a tariff higher
than the rates for domestic supply (DS) category approved by the
Commission from time to time, instead being charged at a rate
higher than the rates of domestic supply (DS) category.
ii) Respondent is still charging the Service Tax on Common Area
Supply (as shown in the Bills for July & August 2017) which is
impermissible. The supply used in the common area is also from
the licensee and hence charging of Service Tax on the Common
Area supply is in violation of Regulations framed by the Hon’ble
Commission. He further submitted that the bills issued are not in
accordance with the Regulations and does not contain the
16 | P a g e
information as required under the Regulation 6.3 of Electricity
Supply Code Regulation, 2014 .
iii) The Respondent is acting in utter disregard to Regulations and
disconnecting the supply of the petitioners arbitrarily and even
for nonpayment of maintenance charges. Reconnection Charge
are permitted in case where supply is disconnected due to
nonpayment of energy bill.
Respondent has been charging Rs. 1000/- as reconnection
charge which is an admitted fact as submitted by the DHBVN in
response to Commission’s order.
iv) Meters have not been calibrated since its installation and there is
no certainty that energy recorded by meter is accurate.
Respondent are also violating the provisions relating to
calibration of meters and the meters are kept under lock and key
and there is a single meter for Utility Supply as well as Generator
Supply which is impermissible in law. Moreover the meters are
not installed as required by the Regulations.
v) The Petitioners requested the Commission to impose penalty
under Section-142 of the Electricity Act, 2003, on the
Respondent No.2 & 3 and also direct registration of FIR for
embezzlement of public money in the garb of charge for
electricity.
It is evident that there has been gross violations of the
Regulations on part of the Respondent No. 2 & 3 and omission on
part of the Respondent No. 4 who has failed to take any action
against the Respondent No. 2 & 3. The Hon’ble Commission is
requested to take the necessary action in accordance with law,
imposing the penalty on the Respondent No. 2 & 3 and further
directions to the Respondents to comply with the Regulations in
letter and spirit.
17 | P a g e
9. Commission Analysis & Order
The commission has carefully considered the written
submissions of the parties as well as submissions, pleadings, data,
materials made/placed during the hearings scheduled in the case and
orders as under:-
i) Regarding charging of higher tariff rates from the
Petitioners, the Commission acknowledges that the Regulation
5.5 of Single Point Supply Regulations provides that
GHS/Employer /Developer/RWA will not charge the residents for
electricity supplied by the Distribution Licensee at a tariff higher
than the rates for Domestic Supply (DS) category approved by the
Commission from time to time. The Regulations further provides
that the residents aggrieved, with charging of tariff rates, can
jointly file a complaint against such GHS/Employer/
Developer/RWA with the Commission through a petition for
redressal of their grievance.
On perusal of the electricity bills for the month of July,
2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. RWA to Shri Rachit
Garg, the Commission observes that bill Rs. 2017.46/- for
consumption of 298 units of DHBVNL has been issued by RWA at
a fixed tariff of Rs. 6.77/- per unit (on the basis of average rate of
cost of electricity received from DHBVNL) whereas it should have
been Rs. 1703.80/- as per HERC approved tariff for the relevant
period including FSA, electricity duty and municipal tax. Further,
the report of officers of the Commission also establishes that
RWA is charging the commercial/NDS consumers of
society/complex at their own rate in contrary to the intents and
provisions of Single Point Regulations. Thus it is evidently
proved that the RWA is not charging for electricity supplied to the
residents in line with the Single Point Supply Regulations. The
18 | P a g e
Commission held that the Respondent No. 2 i.e. RWA is not
charging the tariff for the electricity supplied to the
residents/users as per provision in the Single Point Supply
Regulations.
Regarding information to be printed on the bill in
accordance to with the Regulation 6.3 of Electricity Supply Code
Regulations, 2016, the Commission observes that the
Regulations is applicable to distribution licensee, whereas the
Single Point Supply Regulations, 2013 are silent on the issue.
The Commission therefore directs the Respondent No. 2 &
3 to levy electricity charges from the residents/users of the
society/complex strictly as per Regulation no. 5.5 of HERC Single
Point Supply Regulations (Regulation No. HERC/27/2013). The
electricity bill served to the residents/users should clearly show
the energy consumed and tariff applicable including all the
relevant details.
ii) Regarding charging of service tax on electricity bill @ 14%,
the Commission on scrutiny of the electricity bill served upon
Shri Rachit Garg by the Respondent No. 2, it has been observed
that RWA is charging service tax on the common area
maintenance charges only. Thus the petitioner is incorrect to say
that the service tax is being levied on electricity bill.
The Commission however directs the Respondent No. 2 & 3
to separately specify the charges for Grid Supply used for
common area in the Common area Maintenance Charges CAM
charges and no service charges on this Grid Supply component
be charged.
iii) Regarding disconnection of electricity supply of the
residents of the society/complex, the Commission is of the view
that disconnection of electricity should not normally be done on
19 | P a g e
account of nonpayment of charges other than Grid Supply
charges i.e. on account of Maintenance charges, Backup Supply
charges and other Misc. charges etc. The Commission directs
Respondent No. 2 & 3 to take remedial measures to ensure
disconnection of Grid supply shall not take place, if the
Petitioners or residents or users pay the electricity bill raised by
the Respondent for DHBVNL units i.e. units supplied via Grid
Supply.
Regarding charging of re-connection /RCO fee by the
Respondent No. 2 & 3, the Commission observes that the re-
connection/RCO fee @ Rs. 1000/- is being charged from the
residents in contrary to the RCO fee/charges of Rs. 100/-
approved by the Commission in its General and Miscellaneous
charges applicable to the licensee w.e.f 1st September, 2011 (As
per Commission’s order dated 17.08.2011). The Commission
directs the Respondent No. 2 & 3 not to charge re-
connection/RCO fee or any other charges in contrary to what
specified under General and Miscellaneous charges for
distribution licensee.
iv) Regarding calibration of meters installed in the
society/Complex, the Commission observes that the Single Point
Supply Regulations provides that the distribution licensee will
extend the facility of testing of individual meters of the residents
for accuracy/calibration and sealing, in case so requested by the
RWA on payment of requisite charges. In case, the resident/user
is not satisfied with the accuracy of the energy meter, he may
represent to the Respondent RWA. The RWA will get the meter
accuracy checked from the DHBVNL and testing charges in this
regard shall be borne by the consumer.
20 | P a g e
On the contention of Sh. Rachit Garg regarding accuracy of
meter installed for his apartment, the meter was got checked for
its accuracy by the M&P Division of DHBVNL. The report of M&P
Division confirms the meter accuracy within prescribed limits.
Regarding non accessibility of electricity meters, the
Commission observes that the electricity meters are visible and
installed as per instructions of the distribution licensee. The
Commission further acknowledges that electricity consumption of
residential units is being measured through dual energy meters
which record Grid and Generator Supply separately. The
Commission is of the view that as the supply from Grid and
Generator is recorded and billed separately the question of
violation of law is out of context.
As such, the Commission observes that no specific
directions are required on the above issues.
v) The Commission directs the Respondent No 4 (DHBVNL) to
get the above directions of the Commission implemented through
Respondent No. 2 (RWA) and submit a compliance report to the
Commission within 2 months from the date of issue of this order.
In case of non-compliance of the above orders/directions of the
Commission, action under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003
shall be initiated against the Respondents.
The Petition is disposed off accordingly.
This Order is signed, dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity
Regulatory Commission on 03.10.2017.
Date: 03.10.2017 (Debashish Majumdar) (M. S. Puri) (Jagjeet Singh)
Place: Panchkula Member Member Chairman