District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 476/2021.
Date of Institution:21.09.2021.
Date of Order: 14.02.2023.
Mr. Kiran Rani wife of Mr. Nareshj Kumar, Flat NO. 405, Tower-14, royal Heritage, Sector-70, Greater Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, Hissar (service be effected through its SDO (OP) Old Faridabad).
2. Superintendent Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Badrola Division Greater Faridabad.
3. M/s. Global Maintenance Services Corporation, Plot No. 12, Sector-4, Faridabad Services also be effected at Royal Heritage Society, Sector-70, Faridabad.
4. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Manager & Authorized person of service effected through M/s. Global Maintenance Services Corporation, Plot No. 12, Sector-4, Faridabad.
5. M/s. Pivotal Reality (P) Limited, Unit 704-705, 7th floor, JMD, Pacific Square, Sector-15, Pat-II, Gurugram, Haryana – 122018 through its Director/Managing Director/principal Officer.
6. M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure (P) Limited, Unit 704-705, 7th floor, JMD, Pacific Square, Sector-15, Pat-II, Gurugram, Haryana – 122018 through its Director/Managing Director/Principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
7. Director Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana, SCO-71-75, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.
…..Proforma Opposite party….
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Pankaj Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Ms. Seema Sindhu, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Sh. Ashok Kumar Mittal, counsel for opposite parties Nos. 3,5 & 6.
Opposite party No.4 proforma opposite party vide order dated 31.03.2022.
Opposite party No.7 ex-parte vide order dated 26.05.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner of the flat as mentioned above, and residing therewith his family members that the opposite party No.3 was the services provider and the opposite party No.4 was the Manager/Authorized person of opposite party No.3 and the opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 were working under the instruction of opposite parties Nos.5 & 6. Opposite parties Nos. 5 & 6 were the builders of the said society i.e. Royal Heritage Society, Sector-70, Grater Faridabad. The complainant was the owner of the above mentioned flat vide sale deed No. 8766 dated 11.09.2019 registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. When the complainant entered into the builder buyer agreement dated 01.11.2012 with the opposite parties Nos.5 & 6 there was no clause that the complainant had to take the services of the opposite party No.3 for maintenance of the society that opposite party No.3 was the dummy company of the opposite parties Nos. 5 & 6 which was directly and indirectly controlled by them, Opposite parties Nos.5 & 6 at the time of the allotment of the said flat forced by the complainant to execute the maintenance services agreement with the opposite party No.3 otherwise they would not handover the actual physical possession of the flat as said in Hindi “Marta Kya Na Karta’ the complainant executed the said maintenance services agreement dated 20.08.2018 with the opposite party No.3. The complainant on the false assurance of the opposite parties Nos. 3,5 & 6 paid above said amount and the opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 as per the clause 2 & 4 of maintenance services agreement they had to apply for the bulk electricity connection with the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 as per the applicable laws. Opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 had collected the huge amount from the residents of the said society which was approximately in crores, which was still lying with the opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 and they were enjoying the huge interest over the said amount and according to the knowledge of the complainant now they had diverted the said funds for their personal illegal gain and give wrongful loss to the complainant. The opposite parties Nos. 5 & 6 under the apartment buyers agreement they had charged the above said amount from the complainant under EEC (External Electrification charges/fire fighting charges) FFC (per sq. feet) @ 40 per sq. feet and the complainant had paid Rs.72600/- to the opposite parties Nos.5 & 6 & also paid Rs.20,000/- for power back up charges. The Director Town & Country Planning department, Haryana SCO-71-75, Sector-17C, Chandigarh vide their letter memo No. ZP-578/SD(BS)/201730630 dated 30.11.2017 & vide memo No. ZP-578-Vol-II/JD(RM)/2020/14345 dated 17.08.2020 had directed the opposite parties No.6 in para NO.16 same was reproduced as under:- “That you shall apply for connection of electricity within 15 days from the date of issuance of occupation certificate and shall submit the proof of submission thereof to this office. In case the electricity was supplied through Generator then the tariff charges should not exceed the tariff being charged by DHBVN.” The opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 were the responsible for the maintenance of the society, such as for the electricity of in the common area and they said opposite parties were also responsible to provide total numbers of 9 DG set for the entire society as per the maintenance service agreement Annexure B clause 6 but they had only installed only 6 DG sets and out of 6 DG sets only 5 were operational.
Opposite party No.3 who was working under the instruction of the opposite parties Nos. 5 & 6 had taken a temporary electricity connection from the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 on the name of “construction of building” which was installed in the name of one “Sanjay Sharma” i.e. the opposite party No.4 vide account No. F35-CSHT-0001 Sub Division F-35 S/o Badrola Division Grater, Faridabad that stills the opposite party No.3 had not taken any electricity connection in his own name. Opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 had not applied for the bulk supply with the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and were also charging Rs.15 per unit for the electricity supply form DG sets since day one. The opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 through 4 had only sanctioned load of 250 KW and as per the occupancy certificate issued time to time by the Performa opposite party N.7 to the opposite party No.6 there were existing 1533 units/flats in numbers. For 1533 units 5 KW per flat was allotted by the opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 then 1533x5 = 7665 KW was the basic requirement for the said society but the opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 through opposite party NO.4 had only sanctioned load of 250 KW and due to this the complainant were forced to pay the higher tariff rate to the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 because the opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 had failed to apply for the bulk supply and had got sanctioned only 250 KW load, and the consumption of the society was in higher side then the supply. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 who were legally bound to had proper inspection of DG sets and electricity supply at site had failed to get the inspection of the opposite parties Nos.2 to 6 that the now the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 were charging the higher tariff of the electricity from the complainant and the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 only can calculate the actual loss cause to the complainant for non-installation of the sub-station, less sanctioned load, for the supply of electricity through DG sets. It was evident to mention here that the opposite party No.3 had stated giving the bill since the year 2020 otherwise the opposite party No.3 was charging the bill orally and arbitrary. The complainant who was the actual consumer of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 moved the complaint to the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 to take the action vide complaint dated 05.05.2021 but the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 failed to take the action against the opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 and the said complaint had came into the knowledge of the opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 and now they were continually threatening the complainant that they would disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant permanently if they did not withdraw their complaint. Opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 had also refused to install the electricity sub station and had also refused to rectify the electricity bill and to accept the charges of DG set supply on the DHBNN tariff. Opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 had also refused to get sanctioned the actual electricity connection in their name and also refused to get sanctioned the actual load of the society for which the complainant was forced to pay the electricity bill on higher tariff.
The complainant cannot quantifying the exact amount that the opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 had charged from the public inlarge and from the complainant in the name of said illegal electricity charges and this need proper forensic audit of the society & complainant, which can be audited by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 as per the law and as per the direction of the Hon’ble Forum and from the said audit the exact amount for which the complainant was entitled for refund should be quantified. The complainant soon after receiving the said bill had approached the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 for help and to take the action against the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 for above said act and also for the violation of the direction issued by the proforma opposite party No.7 but no use. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 may kindly be directed to conduct audit/inspection of the electricity meter of the complainant and the residential society i.e. royal, Heritage, Sector-70, Grater Faridabad and further to audit that the electricity charges which were charged by the opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 were accordance with the law and further inspect & audit and calculate the actual loss caused by opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 to the complainant and the society due to non-installation of the Sub- station and due to installation of less electricity load. Opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 directed to provide all the documents & records for the proper audit to the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and same to the complainant.
b) opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 may be directed to take the legal action against the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 for supply and trading of electricity without having any authority and also for the violation of the direction passed by the performa opposite party No.7.
c) opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 may kindly be directed to charge bill of electricity through DG set as per the direction of opposite party No.7 as per the tariff of DHBVN on actual basis and as per the law/ Further directed to charge the electricity consumption charges for the electricity from the complainant supplied by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 as per the tariffs of the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
d) Opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 may kindly be directed to return the excess amount charged by them alongwith the interest @ 24% p.a. charged by them for the supply of the electricity from the said DG more than the tariff of the .DHBVN.
e) Opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 may be directed to install the electricity sub station, within the society and be further directed to have electricity connection in their own name.
f) Opposite party No.3 may kindly be directed to return the amount of Rs.5997.02//- charged against their letter dated 02.05.2021 alongwith the interest @ 24% p.a.
g) Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 be directed to provide the bulk supply to the society as per the actual consumption and demand of the society. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 may further be directed to monitor/audit/inspect the monthly electricity bill of the complainant issued by the opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 were as per the law.
h) Opposite parties Nos.1 to 6 may kindly be directed not to disconnect the electricity of the complainant and the society till the pendency of the complainant and the opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 may kindly be directed to charge the electricity bill for supply of electricity by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 as per the direction issued by the performa opposite party No.7 and also per the law. Opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 may kindly be further directed not to charge the extra amount/loss caused by the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 due to non installation of the sub station in the electricity bill form the complainant.
i) Award Rs.5,00,000/- for gross negligence and deficiency in services of the opposite arties Nos1 to 6 and for not resolving the dispute despite various complaints and representations made by the complainant and/or.
j) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
k) pay Rs. 31,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as per the record of office of opposite party No.1, it released one single point electricity connection bearing account NO. F35-BSHT-0008 in the name of opposite party No.6 i.e. M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure (P) Ltd. And opposite party No.1 had not released any other connection whatsoever to the opposite party No.6 or its residents. The account/meter No. 3026186 may be the individual account of the complainant as maintained by opposite party No.6 in its record and opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 were not privy to the internal arrangement of electricity supply by the opposite party No.6 within its residential towers and nor was its jurisdiction under single point electricity connection. Connections to Group Housing Societies were governed by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulations which were issued and amended from time to time.
Supply of electricity by the distribution licensee to the Group Housing Societies (GHSs)
4.1 a) All Group Housing Societies seeking new electricity connections which were bounded with walls/fence having 20 or more residential units and irrespective of connected load should be given supply at a single point to the GHS at 11 KV or higher voltage depending upon the feasibility under bulk supply (domestic) schedule of tariff for making electricity available to the members of the society residing in the same premises and other loads of common services/NDS load etc. on such terms and conditions specified by the Commission.
b) The GHS may also be supplied through individual electricity connections to its residents/members and for common services/NDS loads by the licensee under relevant schedules of tariff and terms and conditions specified by the Commission.
Provided a reference meter was installed by the distribution licensee at its cost at the incoming supply point of the GHS distribution system and the GHS pays for the energy difference in consumption of the GHS as per reference meter and the electricity consumption of all the residents/members residing in the GHS including the consumption for the common services/other non-domestic loads if any as per their individual meter readings for each billing cycle over and above the losses specified by the Commission.
It was not the jurisdiction of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 to look into individual accounts of the consumers within the society and audit and check the same since that was in the purview of opposite party No.6. Opposite party No.1 was raising a single bill against the bulk domestic supply connection of F35-BSHT-008. It did not generate individual consumer bill nor did it had any jurisdiction as per the regulation. Hence the charge of negligence and deficiency of service was not maintainable against opposite parties Nos.1 & 2. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos. 3,,5 & 6 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had not come with clean hands and he had suppressed material facts form this Hon’ble Commission. Allotment letter in respect of Unit No. T-14/0405 on 4th floor admeasuring super area of 1815 sq. ft. in residential Group Housing Project, Royal Heritage, in Sector-70, Faridabad was allotted in the name of Naresh Kumar vide allotment letter dated 07.09.2012 and that charges for EEC + FFC charges @ Rs.40/- per sq.ft amounting to Rs.72,600/- were fixed. The conveyance deed was executed on 13.12.2018 and was registered as document No. 8457 dated 13.12.2018 with Sub Registrar, Ballabgarh in favour of Mr. Naresh Kumar. As per clause 7 of the said conveyance deed in the event of any fresh additional or enhance charges or tax including but not limit external development, infrastructure development charges or any other charges was levied or leviable on Royal Heritage after execution of this conveyance deed then all such amount should be payable on demand as the case might be either to the vendors or its designated/nominated maintenance agency. As per clause 11 of the conveyance deed the vendee confirmed and acknowledged that the upkeep and maintenance of the common areas and common facilities in the project shall be discharged by the vendors through a maintenance agency and that vendee agreed to execute a separate maintenance agreement with the maintenance agency and strictly adhered to the said maintenance agreement and to promptly pay all demands, charges bills etc. raised by the maintenance agency. The vendee agreed that the maintenance agency shall have right to incase or decrease the maintenance charges. As per clause 16(a) & (b) of the conveyance deed the control and management of the project land of the Group Housing colony the super structure constructed thereon and infrastructure facilities provided therein shall belong to the vendors and its designated maintenance agency and that vendee alongwith other owners of the unit should be bound by the rules & regulations as may be framed and enforced by the maintenance agency from time to time in their sole and absolute discretion for the better enjoyment and maintenance of the building and the project. The maintenance service agreement was also made on 13.12.2018 in favour of Naresh Kumar as per terms and conditions stated therein. And that Naresh Kumar sold the said flat in question in favour of Mrs. Kiran Rani vide registered sale deed No. 8766 dated 24.12.2018. The account meter No. 3026186 in the name of Mrs. Kiran Rani was installed regarding electricity connection and the opposite party No.3 had been raising bills regarding consumption of electricity etc. from month to month. The occupation certificate in respect of building described therein were issued vide letter bearing memo No. 30630 dated 30.11.2017, memo NO. 18960 dated 15.06.2018 and memo No. 14345 dated 17.08.2020 respectively by Director Town &Country Planning department Haryana in favour of opposite party No.6. Vide letter dated 13.07.2018 the opposite party No.2 sanctioned the partial load of 500 KW or CD 500 KVA against already sanctioned ultimate loan of 6655 KW or 7395 KVA for Residential Group Housing in favour of M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On the land measuring 20.3125 Acre, Sector-70 Mujeri, Faridabad under opposite party S/Div. Badrola, Faridabad as per terms and conditions stated therein. As per letter dated 30.10.2018 issued by CE/Commercial (Hisar) DHBVN, F-35, Badrola the application for new connection for BDS category for connected load 500 KW Three Phase and 11 KV was provisionally accepted. Four 500 KVA Silent DG Set Radiator Cooled/PCC 3.3. W/O Panel was installed on 11.09.2019 and another 500 KVA Silent DG Set Radiator Cooled/PCC 3.3. W/O Panel was installed on 07.10.2017 as per density of population. Vide letter dated 26.07.2021 issued by SE/OP Circle, DHBVN, Faridabad deposit estimate etc. were sent and upon that Gift Deed dated 26.03.2021 was made by M/s. Om Subham Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. In favour of DHBVN in respect of land measuring 17 marlas bearing Rect. NO. 35, Killa NO. 5/1/1 min. situated within the revenue estate of Village Mujeri for setting up 33 KVA station which was registered as document No. 7170 dated 26.03.2021. And that agreement dated 21.12.2021 was made among M/s. Om Subham Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., M/s. pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Aggarsain Spaces LLP and M/s. MG Housing Pvt. Ltd. For creation of 33 KV switching station at Sector-70, Faridabad. As per letter dated 23.12.2021 issued by XEN (OP) Division, DHBVN, Grater Faridabad bank guarantees were submitted on 04.01.2022, 17.01.2022 and 20.01.2022. The opposite party raised electricity bill NO. 15 dated 20.01.2022 for Rs.1,52,90,604/- which was deposited by M/s. pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vide cheque No. 319615 dated 10.02.2022 for Rs.28,36,121/-, cheque No. 319616 dated 10.03.2022 for Rs.28,36,000/-, cheque No. 319617 dated 10.04.2022 for Rs.28,36,000/-, cheque No. 319618 dated 10.05.2022 for Rs.28,36,000/-, cheque No. 319619 dated 10.06.2022 for Rs.28,36,000/- and DD No. 317868 dated 02.02.2022 for Rs.19,47,900/- drawn on PNB, Faridabad and that by the said bill, it was established that answering opposite parties deposited the electricity consumption bill at higher tariff rate demanded by opposite party No.1, whereas, answering opposite parties were charging from the complainant and others Rs.6.75% per unit. The electric connection in the name of
Sanjay Sharma was permanently disconnected on 02.02.2022 and that new connection in the name of M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Ltd. Was also installed on 02.02.2022. Vide application dated 22.2.2022 for extension of load 950 – 1950 was made by M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Ltd. Opposite parties Nos.3, 5 & 6 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Shri Vinay Singh, counsel for the complainant has made a statement on 31.03.2022 that “he wants to make Opposite party No.4 as performa opposite party.
5. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.7. Hence, opposite party No.7 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.05.2022.
6. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Kiran Rani, Annexure C-1 – bill, Annexure C-2 – Deed of Apartment, Annexure C-3 – paper cutting, Annexure C-4 – Sale Deed of Residential Unit/flat, Annx.C-5 - Details for registration No. PMOPG/E/2021/0382741, Annx.C-6 – Important instructions to the intending allottee, Annexure C-7 – Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, Annexure C-8 – Adhaar card,
As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2 for opposite party No.1, affidavit of opposite party No.1 was a state-owned electricity distribution entity and opposite party No.2 is an employee of opposite party No.1, Ex.R-1 – Sales Circular No. D-17/2020, Ex.R-2 – bill dated 21.03.2022.
As per evidence of opposite parties Nos. 3,5 & 6 vide Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Shri Anil Ahuja, (Senior Marketing Manager), M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Private Ltd., & Ex.RW3/A – affidavit of Shri Rudhir Dutt, Partner of M/s. Global Maintenance Corporation, Plot NO.12, Sector-4, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 – Sale deed of Residential unit/flat, Ex.R2- allotment letter,, Ex.R3 – Receipt, Ex.R-4 – Conveyance deed, Ex.R5 – Maintenance Services Agreement,Ex.R-6 – bill, Ex.R-7 - letter dated 30.11.2017 regarding applied for the issue of an occupation certificate, Ex.R-8 – letter dated 25.06.2018, Ex.R9 – letter dated 17.08.2020, Ex.R-10 – letter dated 28.8.2017, regarding approval for electrification plan with ultimate load 6655 KW or 7395KVA for residential group housing, M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On the land measuring 20.3125 acres, Sector-70, Majheri, Faridabad, Ex.R-11 letter dated 13.07.2018 regarding sanction of partial load of 500 KW against already sanctioned ultimate load of 6656 KW of 7395 KVA for residential Group Housing in favour of M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On the land measuring20.3125 acre, Sector-70, Majheri, Faridabad, Ex.R-12 – application form for electricity connection, Ex.R-13 – letter dated 03.12.2020 regarding sanction of interim/partial load of 950KW against already approved electrification plan with ultimate load of 6656 KW or 7395 KVA under HT/BDS category applied by M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. For the premises at village Mujheri, Sector-70, Faridabad under OP.S/Divn. Badrola, Faridabad,, Ex.R-14 to 19 – Tax/Invoice , Ex.R-20 - letter dated 26.07.2021 regarding deposit estimate,, Ex.R-21 – receipt, Ex.R-22 – agreement, Ex.R-23 – letter dated 23.12.2021 regarding submission of revise tentative 33 KV line, BG of Internal electrification & construction of 33 KV Switching Station of HT connection for the Bulk Domestic for M/s Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Sector-70, Faridabad,, Ex.R-24 – letter dated 04.01.2022, Ex.R-25 – letter dated 18.01.2022 regarding submission of revise tentative 33 KV line & BG of internal electrification & construction of 33 KV Switching station for HT connection of the bulk Domestic for M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure,, Ex.R-26 – letter dated 20.01.2022, Ex.R-27 – Electricity bill, Ex.R-28 – details of meter reading, Ex.R-29 to R-47 - bills, Ex.R-48 to 66 - details of month wise area and DG reading, Ex.R-66- resolution, Ex.R-67 – resolution.
8. There are eight complaints with the same cause of action and for the same issue. The main order is passed in complaint No.466/2021 in case titled Ajay Pratap Singh Versus DHBVNL. The details of the other 7 complaints are as under:
a) Complaint No.465/2021 titled Raj Kumar Vs. DHBVNL
b) Complaint No. 466/2021 titled Ajay Pratap Singh Vs. DHBVNL
c) Complaint No. 467/2021 titled Amita Saini Vs. DHBVNL
d) Complaint No.468/2021 titled Anurag Gupta Vs. DHNBL
e) Complaint No. 469/2021 titled Lalit Kishore Vs. DHBVNL
f) Complaint No. 470/2021 titled D.S.Tyagi Vs. DHBVNL
g) Complaint No. 471/2021 titled Indra Kumar Bansal Vs. DHBVNL
The complaints are filed with the prayer from Sl. NO.(1) to(Xii). We are deciding these complaints point wise as under:
In these complaints, the complainant applied for the audit of the residential society i.e Royal Heritage, Sector-70, Grater Faridabad of opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 i.e. DHBVNL for the audit of the builder and the maintenance company i.e opposite parties Nos. 3, 5 & 6. Opposite party No.7 is Director Town & Country Planning Department which is proceeded against exparte on 26.05.2022. But the Audit of residential society i.e Royal, Heritage, Sector-70, Greater Faridabad and also prayed Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 i.e DHBVNL to take legal action against opposite parties Nos.3 ,5 & 6 about the trading of the electricity. Also for the direction to Opposite parties Nos. 3,5 & 6 for the installation of DG Set and for the charges of the electricity of the same amount which are charged by the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 of the same price. Further for the return of the excess amount charged by them for the supply of the electricity bill and also requested for the installation the electricity sub station for the society of the opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6. As per prayer of the complainant to refund the amount of Rs.5997.02 charged - After going through the evidence when the opposite party is charging less than what he is paying to the department. No question of refund in this case.
9. After going through the evidence led by the complainant from Annx. C-1 to Annx. C-8 and on the other hand evidence led by the opposite parties i.e material are very effective. As per the allegations about the charges of the electricity opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 is charging from the complainant less than the opposite parties No.1 & 2 i.e DHBVNL. As per Ex, R-1 to R-67, opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 have already D.G.Set as per the requirement of the society and density of the population and they are increasing as per the requirement and there are invoice of the DG vide Ex. R-13 to R-18. As per their evidence also established that they have already gifted the land to the DHBVNL for the sub station, the copy of the gift deed is Ex. R-20A. As per the evidence opposite parties Nos.3,5 & 6 have given the bank guarantee of more than 4 crores to the department for the sub station which shows the bonafidy of the opposite parties. As per their evidence , opposite parties have got permanent electricity connection before filing these complaints . Occupation certificate in respect of building described therein were issued vide letter bearing Memo No. 30630 dated 30.11.2017, Memo No. 18960 dated 15.06.2018 and Memo No. 14345 dated 17.08.2020 respectively by Director Town & Country Planning department Haryanain favour of the opposite party No.6 – M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure pvt. Ltd. The approval of electrification plan with ultimate load of 6655 KW of 7395 KVA to M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Under single point HT/BS/DS category under (OP) S/Div. DHBVNL Badrola was accorded subject to compliance of terms & conditions stated in the letter dated 28.08.2017 by opposite party NO.1 – DHBVNL.
Letter dated 13.07.2018, the opposite party No.2, Superintendent Engineer, OP, DHBVNL Faridabad sanctioned the partial load of 500 KW or CD 500 KVA against already sanctioned ultimate load of 6655 KW or 7395 KVA for Residential Group Housing in favour of M/s. Pivotal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On the land measuring 20,3125 Acre, Sector-70, Mujeri, Faridabad under OP. S/Div. Badrola Faridabad as per terms & conditions stated therein.
As per letter dated 30.10.2018 issued by CE/Commercial (Hisar) DHBVNL, F-35, Badrola the application for new connection for BDS category for connected load 500 KW Three phase and 11 KV was provisionally accepted.
10. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the complainant has failed to establish his case. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties have been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed.
Announced on: 14.02.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
