Can't Use 'Audi Alteram Partem' To Cure Self-Suffered Wound: P&H HC Rejects Plea By Electricity Firm For Allegedly Overcharging Residents

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a firm's plea which had challenged an order of the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (UHBVN) formulated under the regulations of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) which had directed the former to provide electricity bill to the consumers showing clearly the energy consumed and tariff applicable following the regulations.

The firm namely M/s Brahma Maintenance Pvt Ltd was accused of overcharging on account of electricity consumption charges. It was alleged that the petitioner-firm is charging about Rs.5-7 Lakhs per month extra from the flat owners on account of electricity consumption charges, and further they are not submitting the bill to the UHBVNL (electricity distribution company), regularly, which leads to burden of extra surcharge on each flat owner.

Rejecting the plea of audi alteram partem , Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "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. From the facts above, it is vividly postulated, that the petitioner-firm was very much aware about the proceedings pending before respondent no.1-Forum, as the principal of the petitioner-firm had already responded to the pendency proceedings."

The plea filed by M/s Brahma Maintenance Pvt Ltd service provider to M/s Max Height Metro View Apartment, at Sonipat challenging the order, passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (UHBVN) which directed to strictly abide by Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission.

It was argued that the notice was served to its principal–M/s Max Height Metro View Apartment, however, no notice was served to the petitioner-firm as it is the service provider and directly affected by the forum's order. 

The main argument of the petitioner was the non-compliance to the principle of audi alteram partem before passing the order.

After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that the petitioner-firm is unable to point out any infirmity in the order or to point out any regulation authorising the petitioner-firm to add any charges to the electricity bill in violation of the HREC regulations.

"However, the thrust of the argument revolves only around, since the order was passed without serving any notice to the present petitioner-firm, therefore, order is suffers from vice of illegality," the court noted. 

Justice Tiwari highlighted that during the pendency of the instant proceedings, the SDO concerned has sought a reply from the petitioner's principal, i.e. M/s Max Heights Metro View Apartment, and not only that, that firm had responded to the notice to the SDO concerned, and also the bill for the month of July, 2024, charged by the petitioner-firm, is in accordance with the direction issued by the Forum on 05.08.2024, though it has mischeiviously added other charges, which is clearly recorded in the impugned order.

"Therefore, this Court can safely conclude that the petitioner-firm was very well aware about the pendency of the intant proceedings. However, with an oblique motive to create a defence at the appellate stage, immediately after culmination of proceedings before the authority concerned, he approached this Court and raised hue and cry about violation of the principle of natural justice," added the Court.

Stating that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the directions, the Court dismissed the plea.

 Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana.

Title: M/S BRAHMA MAINTENANCE PVT.LTD. v. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM (UHBVN) AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 41

Click here to read/download the order