Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner-firm against an order passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (‘Consumer Forum’) contending that they did not receive a notice of the proceedings, a Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari, J., dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings as the petitioner’s principal, i.e., Max Height Metro View Apartment (‘respondent 5’), responded to the proceedings and the bill for the month of July 2024, charged by the petitioner was in accordance with the direction issued by the Consumer Forum during the proceedings.
Background
Respondent 4 complained against the petitioner and respondent 5, contending that they were overcharging the residents of respondent 5 on account of electricity consumption charges. Allegedly, the petitioner, who was the service provider of respondent 5, was charging about Rs. 5 to 7 lakhs extra per month from the flat owners, and further, they did not regularly submit the bill to the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (‘UHBVN’), the electricity distribution company, which led to the burden of extra surcharge on each flat owner.
Respondent 4 also alleged that the petitioner had illegally added the Common Area Electricity Bill to all the flat owners, charged Rs. 26 per unit for power back from the first unit and charged Rs. 200+ Goods and Services Tax as a fixed charge, which was not in accordance with the regulations.
The Sub-Divisional Officer (‘SDO’) concerned directed respondent 5 to submit the electricity and maintenance bills raised to respondent 4 and other inhabitants of respondent 5, enabling them to file a response before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (‘Consumer Forum’). However, despite two communications, respondent 5 opted not to file any response.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum, on 05-08-2024, the SDO was directed to act against respondent 5, as per the specific instructions issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘HERC’). In pursuance of the directions issued by the SDO, the petitioner charged the electricity bill at the rate of Rs. 6.13 per unit and removed the fixed charges but added the Common Area Electricity Bill to all the flat owners, in the bill of July 2024, against the norms of the UHBVN as it was supposed to be added to the maintenance charges.
The Consumer Forum passed the impugned order whereby the petitioner and respondent 5 were directed to strictly abide by Regulation 5.5 of HERC Single Point Supply Regulation (‘the Regulation’) and show the energy consumed and tariff applicable, including all relevant details, in the electricity bills served to the residents.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition contending that they were not given notice of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum, thus, it was a violation of the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner was unable to point out any infirmity in the impugned order or point out any regulation authorising them to add any charges to the electricity bill in violation of the HREC regulations. The thrust of the argument revolved only around the contention that the order was passed without serving any notice to the petitioner, therefore, it suffered from illegality.
The Court stated that undisputedly, as per the HERC directions, the electricity bill was required to be issued to the consumers as per the specific sales circular, and the electricity consumption charges could not be clubbed with any other charges.
The Court said that the petitioner’s contentions were bereft of any merit. The Court noted that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the SDO sought a reply from respondent 5, which was provided. Additionally, the bill for July 2024 charged by the petitioner was in accordance with the direction issued by the Consumer Forum during the proceedings, although they mischievously added other charges.
The Court stated, “The doctrine of audi alteram partem cannot be used to cure the self-suffered wound, specifically, by those persons who are sitting on the fence.”
The Court held that it could be seen from the facts that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings pending before the Consumer Forum, as the petitioner’s principal, i.e., respondent 5, had responded to the proceedings. Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, however, he approached the Court raising hue and cry about the violation of the principle of natural justice with an oblique motive to create a defence at the appellate stage, immediately after the culmination of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum.
Thus, the petition was dismissed.
[Brahma Maintenance (P) Ltd. v. Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (UHBVN), Civil Writ Petition No. 34815 of 2024, decided on 13-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Supriya Garg
For the respondent: Bhupender Singh, DAG
