HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
SCO 180, SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA 134 109, HARYANA   

 CASE NO. HERC/PRO –7  OF 2001

 Date of Order:  26th February, 2002 

In the matter of petition filed by Sh. Vajinder Singh Malik, General Secretary, HEWO Apartments, Sector 15-II, Gurgaon in respect of non-implementation of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission order dated 22.05.2001 by the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.,(DHBVNL) a subsidiary of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., the Licensee for Distribution and Retail supply business of electricity in Haryana.

 ORDER

1)        This  petition has been filed by the General Secretary of HEWO apartment association located at Sector-15, Part-II, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as HEWO) seeking immediate release of individual service  connection to the flat owners of HEWO by Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to  as DHBVNL)  which is a subsidiary of  Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd., (hereinafter referred to  as HVPNL), the Licensee for the business of Distribution & Retail supply of electricity in Haryana.

1.1   The HEWO has stated that the electrical lay-out of the distribution net work from the existing available supply point to the meter boxes of the individual flat owners, which  forms part of distribution net work of DHBVNL,  was approved by the then competent authority of the DHBVNL i.e. Chief Engineer Operation DHBVNL Delhi on 22.09.2000. The underground  cables for connecting feeders from pillar box to individual blocks  in the  complex, where individual flat owner is having his premises were routed and laid as per the approved lay out. An amount of Rs. 16.27 lacs was also paid by the HEWO to DHBVNL  on 28.9.2000, for releasing supply connection to individual flat owners. 

1.2   The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) vide its order dated 22.5.2001 had decided as follows:-

“ The Utility shall provide individual connections to the flat owners of the Group Housing Societies/multi-storeyed building etc., if they individually apply for such connection subject to the fulfilment of other conditions.  The Group Housing Societies/multi-storeyed buildings shall  have the option to go in for a single point connection for the supply of power to the flats collectively.  However, in such a case they will require an exemption from obtaining a licence under section 16 of the Haryana Electricity Reform Act-1997”

Subsequent to this order of Commission, the DHBVNL issued Sales circular No. D-63/2001  Dated 17.7.2001 after  approval of its Board of Directors, which gave direction to all its field staff to ensure certain new  technical requirements mentioned in the circular before the distribution layout is approved for providing individual service connection to flat owners of group housing society/multistorey building complex.  The said circular  states as follows:-

“The metering room consisting of all meters through which individual supply is provided shall be separately and conveniently located in the ground floor of the society/complex.  The metering room shall consist of sufficient space to house all meters with MCBs of the current design. Further the cable(s) connecting the metering room to the distribution line shall be externally provided and shall be visible from outside.  It shall also be ensured that sufficient protection shall be provided to prevent a consumer from directly connecting to the main supply in case of disconnection or otherwise”.

It was also mentioned that the provision of the circular shall also apply to Group Housing Societies/complexes where the distribution layout already stands approved and where the approval has not been sought from GM/Commercial & CE/PD&C.  In such cases, however, it shall be ensured that the system is approved with or without modification within a period of three months from the date of its submission.

1.3   The DHBVNL in compliance to its own circular asked the petitioner to change the lay out already approved earlier to ensure that all the meters of HEWO are installed in one room on the ground floor and the cables already laid  underground connecting the meters shall be exposed.  The DHBVNL insisted that the orders should be complied with.  The petitioner has submitted that it would be difficult at this stage to make changes as  the cables have already  been laid and covered after its due inspection by the competent person of DHBVNL for which the inspection fee has also been paid prior to the issue of this circular of DHBVNL on 17.7.2001. HEWO  further  requested the DHBVNL to release the connection as per their mutually agreed lay out plan of Sept.2000 to avoid any undue hardship specially to the old retired persons and  children  occupying the flats.

1.4   In order to assess the site constraints a joint inspection was done at site on 27.7.2001. HEWO explained the difficulties & constraints at site to DHBVNL in complying with the instructions of the Sales Circular dated 17.7.2001. The joint inspection  concluded that:-

i)           instead of providing a separate room for Meters, the arrangement as suggested and agreed to by the HEWO, was considered to be fairly acceptable and  HEWO was asked to go ahead accordingly.

ii)           The chances of theft by tapping these cables was also almost ruled out.

1.5      After this site report HEWO met the Chairperson and the Managing Director of DHBVNL separately and apprised them of the outcome of site visit and requested  to expedite service connection to individual flat owners as per  Commission’s order.  But HEWO could not get any response and as a result HEWO has  filed this  petition before HERC against DHBVNL.

1.6   It was said during the hearing that HEWO  would be paying   charges to DHBVNL  towards Operation & Maintenance @ 12 ˝% per year for the net work which has been laid by HEWO at their cost for developing the distribution net work between existing supply point of DHBVNL  up to the meter boards of individual flat owners of HEWO.

1.7   The petitioner pleaded that non-implementation of the order of the Commission for providing service connection to individual flat owners of the society even after fulfilling the conditions laid down by DHBVNL is depriving the petitioner of the benefits of the order of the Commission  and amounts to contempt thereof.

2      HVPNL/DHBVNL  in their reply, state  that in compliance with Commission’s order dated 22.12.2000, DHBVNL issued sales circular No. D-63/2001 Dated 17.7.2001 in order to safeguard the Utility against any incidence of theft through the underground/concealed cables and also to facilitate meter readings at one location.  This provision was universal to all consumers of the DHBVNL and was in no way discriminatory to the residents of HEWO.  In that, the above provision does not militate against the order of the Hon’ble Commission in any manner whatsoever and is fully covered by the order of the Hon’ble Commission being only a technical requirement.” HVPNL/DHBVNL have maintained studied silence about the meetings of HEWO with the chairperson and the Managing Director of DHBVNL both in their reply and at the hearing.

3.1    We are constrained to observe  that DHBVNL has sought to create a wrong impression with the public by stating that the HERC’s order dated 22.12.2000 was the basis for issue of Sales Circular No. D-63/2001 Dated 17.7.2001, as the former  was basically a tariff order.  The tariff order of December 2000 did not in any way change the applicability of Bulk supply tariff for general and mixed load exceeding 10 KW as it existed prior to the issue of tariff order of Dec. 2000.The order  of the Commission dated 22^nd May 2001 allowed the consumers of the Group Housing Society/M.S. building to opt for individual service connection or a single bulk supply connection.

3.2   The Commission observes that subsequent to issue of its order dated 22.5.2001, DHBVNL & UHBVNL  issued Sales Circulars No. D-63/2001 dated 17.7.2001 & 56/2001 Dated 15.6.2001 respectively to their field staff to take further action. DHBVNL in its circular of 17.07.01 laid down new conditions which were earlier not existing for individual service connection. No such  conditions were laid down by UHBVNL.  The Licensee i.e. HVPNL could not clarify to the Commission the reasons for changing the then existing conditions of supply by one of its subsidiary i.e. DHBVNL alone for meeting the common objective of providing individual service connection on uniform terms and conditions in the state of Haryana.  It is the  responsibility of the licensee i.e. HVPNL to ensure that different practices are not adopted for the same purpose in the state of Haryana by its two subsidiaries resulting in discrimination / delay / harassment/additional financial hardship in providing service connection to consumers. The Commission regrets  that HVPNL has failed to check discriminatory practice by DHBVNL in this regard. It was noted that the Licensee had been providing service connection to individual flat owners with  similar type of arrangement which was originally approved for  HEWO prior to the issue of above sales circular of DHBVNL.

3.3   In regard to DHBVNL assertion of  precautions against possible theft by tapping the licensee’s network, the commission is of the view that no consumer can tap the charged net work under the sole control of the licensee without the connivance of the staff of the licensee. The Commission is also of the view that the responsibility of providing theft proof net work required to supply power up to the meter lies with  the licensee and not with consumers for which capital expenditure is allowed in ARR. Consumers should neither be asked to provide capital nor to lay the net work on behalf of the licensee.  Consumer shall only pay its portion of cost of the service connection as per approved terms and conditions of service of   the licensee.  In this case the entire work portion of licensee has been arranged and executed by the consumer under the approval and supervision of the licensee.  Consumer has in a way obliged the licensee by carrying out works on its behalf and can not be asked to incur further expenditure or accept avoidable delay in releasing connection.

3.4   On being asked by the Commission at the hearing that the Housing Society concept, being recent in Haryana compared to Delhi/Bombay/Calcutta, whether any attempt has been made to visit/discuss the arrangements being made by other well-performing utilities like CES/BSES etc., who have long and wide experience of providing supply to individual house owners of such multistorey building / housing Societies and whether any adverse impact of providing connections to such consumer by buried cables has been noticed,  the answer from DHBVNL was in the negative.  It was brought to the notice of HVPNL that  power supplied by BSES in its licensed area is almost all by U.G. cables which is considered as most reliable and theft proof way of power supply provided it is laid by its own staff.  The T&D losses of BSES are about 12% through such net work.  Commission, therefore, is of the view that management of DHBVNL has acted differently from UHBVNL in an arbitrary manner  and HVPNL has failed to  check such an act of DHBVNL which has resulted in undue delay in providing service connection to consumers for no fault of theirs & in  penalising the consumers for developing the portion of net work which forms part of the responsibility of DHBVNL and forcing them to invest more for making changes even after completing the works as per approved lay out.  It is a  complete stalemate in this case after the inspection has been carried out at site. DHBVNL has neither rejected the finding of the inspection team by giving valid reason and asked consumer to change the lay out nor given any time frame by which the service connection would be given.

3.5   The method adopted by the licensee to prevent pilferage by direct   tapping of supply prior to Meter by laying cables in open trenches is not only un-professional in approach but also very unsafe for the residents of the complex if the trench covers are not properly maintained. Licensee must ensure that its net work and meters are theft proof and should take action under the rules if any body is found to be stealing energy. 

Licensee must keep a vigil on its net work and on the related staff and adopt all latest technological means to audit energy, detect and identify the theft /excess losses etc. as a part of its routine working.

Licensee must change its mind set under the present regulatory regime & try to adopt a service oriented attitude towards consumers and treat them as honest customers till the contrary is proved.  It is time now that licensee should put its house in order & take help of improved technology to eliminate connivance of its staff  in theft of its own commodity i.e. power.

The underground cables laid in pipe and / or concreted by the licensee is the safest mode of laying cables from the point of view of pilferage.  This method has been adopted in most of the housing societies at Delhi/Bombay.  Licensee has other tools for energy audit and detection of theft.  Adoption of  improved technology is a better solution for curbing theft & corruption and  for carrying out  energy audit in a continuous manner.

This action of DHBVNL in regard to HEWO  has been viewed by the Commission as harassment to consumers.  Therefore, Commission directs  that henceforth, it would be  the responsibility of the Licensee of each Distribution Company (presently HVPNL)to develop theft proof service connection net work up to Meter at its own cost and to recover only the  consumers share as per approved terms and conditions of service. Consumer shall not be asked to  execute any work forming part of such service connection.

3.6   In regard to the installation of   meters of consumers residing in separate blocks in a common meter room, we believe that the responsibility for safe custody of meters provided at the premises of the consumer lies with the consumer.  The consumer cannot be saddled with  this responsibility if the meter is installed outside his  premises or the block which is not integral to its premises.

DHBVNL has not applied its mind to understand  that meter is  to be installed at the premises of the individual consumer and not at a place which does not exclusively belong to him & form part of his premises and where consumer cannot ensure  safety against misuse of meter.  Normally in a M.S. block it is an acceptable practice that meters to all residents of the block are installed in the same block at ground floor to avoid inconvenience to Meter readers. It is now possible to install meters at the flats of the individual owner at different elevations also due to availability of technology of reading meters by remote held devices.

DHBVNL should explore the use of advanced technologies now available which may result in more accurate billing at faster rate even when the premises are found locked, minimising interface between consumer and staff of the distribution licensee to eliminate mutual connivance and ensure  speedy correct billing at minimum  cost.

The Commission therefore, directs DHBVNL  to provide meters to the individual flat owners of HEWO in the block in which they are residing and for which technical solution has been provided by the inspection team.  

4.     In view of our foregoing discussion of the issues involved, the petition of HEWO is allowed and the Managing Director of DHBVNL is hereby ordered to provide service connection to individual flat owners of HEWO within 15 days of this order after observing all formalities.

This order is signed, dated and issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission on 26^th February, 2002. 

Dated: 26.2.2002
Place :  Panchkula