Haryana

Sonipat

CC/398/2015

Residence Welfare Association Omaxe Heights - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Chander

04 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.398 of 2015

                             Instituted on:28.10.2015

                             Date of order:04.04.2016

 

Residence Welfare Association, Omaxe Heights, Sector 8, Sonepat through its authorized representative Smt. Savitri Dahiya wife of Azad Singh, resident of 201, Platinum Tower, Omaxe Height, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1.Omaxe Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regd. Office at Omaxe House, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.

2.M/s Facility Plus, Estate Management Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Regd. Office at Office A-1, 343-B, Lawrence road, Delhi.

3.Ganga Sagar Awasthi, Estate Manager, M/s Facility Plus, Estate Management Pvt. Ltd., Administrative office, Omaxe Height, Sector 8, Sonepat.

4.Superintendent Engineer, UHBVN Ltd. Operation Circle, Office at old DC road, Sonepat.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Satish Chander, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. H.O. Sharma, Adv. for respondent no.1 & 2.

           Respondent no.3 ex-parte.

           Sh. Amit Balyan, Adv. for respondent no.4.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant Residence Welfare Association has filed the present complaint  through its authorized representative against the respondents alleging therein that all the residents of Omaxe Heights have purchased their flats from the respondent no.1, who has developed the said Omaxe Heights with assurance of all amenities including electricity/power back up, water, security, common area management etc.   The respondent no.1 has charged Rs.29300/- from all the residents on account of electricity meter cost for supply of electricity and Rs.61550/- as electrical equipment costs and fire fighter equipment cost.    The respondent no.2 is nominated agency of respondent no.1 who has been engaged to provide all the necessary maintenance services and amenities to flat occupants of said colony.  The complainant has obtained an electricity connection for the above said flat from respondent no.1 to 3 through respondent no.4.  Accordingly an electricity meter has been installed in the premises of the complainant and the complainant is using the electricity for the last about two years.  The respondent no.1 to 3 are providing the electricity supply through respondent no.4 through a non-domestic supply connection and as per the circular of UHBVN Ltd., the electricity supply for a residential society must be through a domestic bulk supply connection.  The charges of non-domestic supply connection is much higher than the charges of domestic bulk supply connection.   The complainant has requested the respondent no.1 to 3 in this regard, but of no use and the respondents no.1 to 3 are taking excessive bill amount from the residents of the society. It was incumbent upon the respondent no.4 to provide the domestic bulk supply connection to respondent no.1 to 3 for the electricity supply in residential society, but of no use.  There is collusion in between the respondents no.1 to 3 and 4 as respondents no.1 to 3 are charging Rs.500/- from all residents on account of fixed charges in electricity bill, which is not reasonable & against the norms and directions issued by the UHBVN Ltd. and in this way, they are extracting a huge amount form the residents of the society, for which, they have no right to do so.  So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1, 2 and 4 have appeared and they filed their separate  written statement except the respondent no.3 who was proceeded against ex-parte.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their  written statement have submitted that they have developed the project in terms of plans duly sanctioned by the competent authority and handed over possession of the flats to the respective flat allottees.  As per the complainant, the respondent no.2 is charging the electricity from them at higher rate.  Infact higher rates of electricity were never charged from the complainant. They purchased electricity from respondent no.4 by a non-domestic connection installed by respondent no.4 in the complex and they distribute the electricity in the individual flats by providing a separate electricity meter for each flat  and thus, they were charging the electricity charges as per actual consumptions.  The UHBVN Ltd. raised bills upon the respondent charging electricity at the rate of Rs.8.27 paise per unit (unit rate 6.50 + FSA 1.62 + DC 0.10 + Municipal Taxes 0.05) whereas respondent no.1 and 2 used to charge from the allottees at the rate of Rs.7.49 paise per unit, which is less than 0.78 paise per unit and thus, the respondents no.1 and 2 were suffering loss of such amount by providing electricity to the occupants of the complex on less rate than actual rate paid to UHBVN Ltd.  Most of residents are not paying common area maintenance charges including 94 members, who approached this Hon’ble Forum and by concealing the true facts, they obtained ex-parte stay order from disconnection of their electricity supply, as a result of which, as on date, a sum of around Rs.90,00,000/- of the respondent no.2 is outstanding against them.  To avoid the making of payment of these outstanding amounts, the complainants have filed the present complaint.    The respondent has provided a separate electricity meter of 5 KW to each residents of the complex.  UHBVN Ltd. takes fixed charges at the rate of Rs.175/- per KW from the respondent, whereas respondents no.1 and 2 were charging only a sum of Rs.500/- per meter at the rate of Rs.100/- per KW, which were much lesser than the amount, the respondent no.1 and 2 were paying.  So, there is no illegal charging on the part of the respondent no.1 and 2.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.4 in their written statement has submitted that  the complainant has no right to file the present complaint as the complainant is not the consumer of the respondent no.4. The respondent no.1 is the consumer of the respondent no.4 under NDS category vide old account no.FP6-135, new a/c no.S21-MV51-1014A.  The amount of Rs.60,86,914/- is still due against the respondent no.1 vide bill no.63 which was due on 25.1.2016.  The respondent no.1 had applied for installation of electricity connection under NDS not for domestic category.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.4 and there is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.4 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.4.

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued his case vehemently that the respondents on.1 to 3 in collusion with the respondent no.4 has refused to change the non domestic supply to domestic bulk supply and not to charge Rs.500/- as fixed charges in the electricity bills on 14.10.2015.  The complainant has suffered a huge financial loss, harassment, mental agony as  the respondents no.1 to 3 are charging a high and excessive amount of electricity charges form the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has submitted that they have developed the project in terms of plans duly sanctioned by the competent authority and handed over possession of the flats to the respective flat allottees.  As per the complainant, the respondent no.2 is charging the electricity from them at higher rate.  Infact higher rates of electricity were never charged from the complainant. They purchased electricity from respondent no.4 by a non-domestic connection installed by respondent no.4 in the complex and they distribute the electricity in the individual flats by providing a separate electricity meter for each flat  and thus, they were charging the electricity charges as per actual consumptions.  The UHBVN Ltd. raised bills upon the respondent charging electricity at the rate of Rs.8.27 paise per unit (unit rate 6.50 + FSA 1.62 + DC 0.10 + Municipal Taxes 0.05) whereas respondent no.1 and 2 used to charge from the allottees at the rate of Rs.7.49 paise per unit, which is less than 0.78 paise per unit and thus, the respondents no.1 and 2 were suffering loss of such amount by providing electricity to the occupants of the complex on less rate than actual rate paid to UHBVN Ltd.  Most of residents are not paying common area maintenance charges including 94 members, who approached this Hon’ble Forum and by concealing the true facts, they obtained ex-parte stay order from disconnection of their electricity supply, as a result of which, as on date, a sum of around Rs.90,00,000/- of the respondent no.2 is outstanding against them.  To avoid the making of payment of these outstanding amounts, the complainants have filed the present complaint.    The respondent has provided a separate electricity meter of 5 KW to each residents of the complex.  UHBVN Ltd. takes fixed charges at the rate of Rs.175/- per KW from the respondent, whereas respondents no.1 and 2 were charging only a sum of Rs.500/- per meter at the rate of Rs.100/- per KW, which were much lesser than the amount, the respondent no.1 and 2 were paying.  So, there is no illegal charging on the part of the respondent no.1 and 2.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that the complainant has no right to file the present complaint as the complainant is not the consumer of the respondent no.4. The respondent no.1 is the consumer of the respondent no.4 under NDS category vide old account no.FP6-135, new a/c no.S21-MV51-1014A.  The amount of Rs.60,86,914/- is still due against the respondent no.1 vide bill no.63 which was due on 25.1.2016.  The respondent no.1 had applied for installation of electricity connection under NDS not for domestic category.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondent no.4 and there is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.4 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.4.

          In the present case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C7 i.e. Notification regarding single point supply to residential colonies and Ex.C8 schedule of tariff for supply of energy.

          In the notification Ex.C7, it is mentioned that While some such societies/RCs have single point supply under bulk supply (domestic) category but in most of the cases, the residents have individual electricity connections/meters installed by distribution licensees.

          For a colony falling under the purview of Regulation 3.1, a GHS seeking single point supply as per regulation 4.1 and a GHS not falling under the purview of regulation 4.1, but the GHS/Develope4r/RWA, at its own option, seeking new electricity connection under single point supply in line with regulation 4.3, the GHS/employer/Developer/RWA shall be obliged to seek supply of electricity at a single point at 11 KV or higher voltage under these regulations.

          The energy consumption after allowing the rebate as above and the maximum demand recorded by single point supply meter will be billed at the tariff as applicable to bulk supply (domestic) category. All other terms and others as applicable to bulk supply (domestic) category as laid down in the schedule of tariff notified and as demanded by the Commission from time to time shall be applicable for single point supply under these regulations unless otherwise provided for in these regulations.

          Further in the document Ex.C8 (Schedule of tariff for supply of energy) , tariff for the year 2015-16 for non-domestic is mentioned as under:-

 

Category III(Total Consumption more-than 500 units/month
Consumers above 50 KW	630/KVAH	170/KW	Nil

 

 

Bulk supply (Domestic)(70 KW and above at 11 KV or above voltage
For total consumption in a month not exceeding 500 units/flat/dwelling unit (DU)	470/KWH	Rs.100/KW of the recorded demand	Nil.
For total consumption in a month exceeding 500 units/flat/DU	585/KWH

 

 

The bulk supply (domestic) tariff shall apply only to the consumer categories covered by the single point supply regulations notified by the commission.

          We have also perused the bill Ex.R4/1 very carefully and from this bill, it is clear that the respondent no.1 is paying the electricity charges to the respondent no.4 for NDS category. 

          At the time of arguments, the respondent no.2 has placed on record the document marked as JN and the details mentioned in the document JN is reproduced below:-

 

Particulars	Period	Rate/Unit	Amount
Energy Charges CAM Charges Sinking Fund	27.7.2015 to 25.8.15 1.9.2015 to 30.9.15 1.9.2015 to 30.9.2015	7.490 unit 1.500/Sq.feet/month 100.000/lumpsum	1376.00 1791—00 100-00
Electricity meter reading               Current   Units    Rate   Amount Fixed Charges Grid supply 2943.00  3060.00   117.000      7.49     876.33      500.00

 

 

 

Particulars	Period	Rate/Unit	Amount
Energy Charges CAM Charges Energy charges(DG) Sinking Fund	26.10.15 to 25.11.15 1.12.2015 to 31.12.15 26.10.15 to 25.11.15 1.12.15 to 31.12.2015	7.490 unit 1.500/Sq.feet/month 14.160/unit 100.000/lumpsum	1902.00 1775—00  227.00 100-00
Electricity meter reading                  Current   Units    Rate   Amount Fixed Charges Grid supply 13479.000  13717.00     238.000    7.49     1782.62     119.00

 

          In the present case, the complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents:-

1. To change electricity supply connection from non-domestic supply to domestic bulk supply connection,
2. To stop charging the amount of Rs.500/- as fixed charges and to refund the excessive amount as already received by the respondent no.1 to 3 in lieu of fixed charges.
3. The respondents be also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service.
4. The complainant be also awarded an amount of Rs.21,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

The bare perusal of the documents available on

the case file and the document JN placed on record at the time of arguments itself shows that the respondents no.1 to 3 have charged Rs.500/- against the load of 5 KW as fixed charges in the month of September and prior to it, in the month of August, they have charged the amount of Rs.400/- and now they have charged Rs.119/-.

          At the time of arguments, it is submitted that in the meeting held in between the Welfare Association  and the owner of the flats, it was settled that in future, the respondent no.1 will charge the amount of Rs.119/- for 5 KW.

         

          At the time of arguments, SDO is also present who has deposed that now the charges of NDS category  are Rs.8.27 paise per unit.  So, it is clear that the respondents no.1 to 3 are paying the charges on higher rates and are receiving less charges from the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that there are total 700 allottees, out of which, 350 allottees have taken the possession of their flats and they are residing therein.  94 Consumers have come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint through Residence Welfare Association.

          In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the complainant.  Thus, it is directed to the complainant to provide the list within 7 days to the respondent no.1 to 3 of the persons who have paid the amount during the pendency of the present complaint.  After receiving the above said list from the complainant, the respondent no.1 to 3 shall generate the bill due against the consumers within 15 days after taking into consideration the electricity charges, energy charges, CAM charges, sinking fund and energy charges DG set. It is also directed that after receiving the bill from the respondent no.1 to 3, the complainant shall deposit the bill amount with the respondents within 10 days.

          We also direct the respondents no.1 to 3 to apply with the respondent no.4 for the release of bulk supply electricity connection under domestic category within one month.  The respondents no.1 to 3 are further directed to apply for separate NDS electricity connection with the respondent no.4 for running their commercial activities.

The respondent no.4 is also directed not to charge the surcharge or penalty from the respondents no.1 to 3 for the period during which the present complaint remains pending before this Forum.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)               (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                         DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:04.04.2016