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