M/S Brahma Maintenance Private Limited\ vs. The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (Uhbvn) And Others

Facts

M/s Brahma Maintenance Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) challenged an order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (UHBVN) (respondent no.1). The petitioner provides services to M/s Max Height Metro View Apartment. The impugned order directed the petitioner and its principal to strictly adhere to Regulation No. 5.5 of HERC Single Point Supply Regulations, ensuring electricity bills clearly show energy consumed, tariff, electricity duty, municipal tax, and FSA. The petitioner's challenge was based on the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem, arguing it was not served notice despite being directly affected. The complaint leading to the order alleged overcharging by the petitioner, non-submission of bills to UHBVNL, and collection of fixed charges from EWS flats and shops. The developer, M/s Max Height Metro View Apartment, failed to respond to SDO's notices.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the violation of the principle of audi alteram partem was without merit. The Court found that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings before respondent no.1, as its principal had responded to notices from the SDO concerning the pending proceedings. The Court stated that the petitioner's awareness, coupled with the principal's response, meant the petitioner could not claim ignorance of the proceedings. The Court further noted that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the directions issued by respondent no.1 or any regulation that permitted the petitioner to add charges to electricity bills in violation of HERC regulations. The Court concluded that the petitioner's attempt to use the doctrine of audi alteram partem was to create a defense at a later stage, describing it as a "self-suffered wound." Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by respondent no.1-The Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (UHBVN) is illegal for violating the principle of audi alteram partem by not serving notice to the petitioner-firm, M/s Brahma Maintenance Pvt. Ltd., who is directly affected as the service provider. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that although its principal, M/s Max Height Metro View Apartment, received notice, the petitioner-firm itself, being the service provider and directly impacted by the order, was not served with any notice. This omission, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of natural justice, rendering the order illegal. Respondent's argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's reasoning implies a rejection of the petitioner's claim based on the facts presented.