MPERC allowed Techfab (India) Industries to withdraw its rebate/tariff-clarification petition against MP Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co., with liberty to refile
Petition under Regulation 44, 45, 46 and 47 of MPERC (Conduct of Business) (Revision-1) Regulations, 2016 seeking appropriate directions for grant of rebate of incremental consumption and for clarification of Tariff Provision read with Clause the tariff-HV-3.4 (d) of Tariff Order 2024-25 and 2025-26 read with Clause 1.36 of General terms and conditions of high tension tariff FY 2024-25 and 2025-26. (Petitioner: 1) M/s Techfab (India) Industries Ltd., Raisen (MP)-462046)
Techfab filed a petition seeking directions to grant rebate on incremental monthly consumption, treating the first 12 months after its 14.05.2024 connection agreement as the base year, and sought clarification of Clause HV 3.4(d) of the Tariff Orders FY2024-25/2025-26 and Clause 1.36 of General Terms and Conditions of HT Tariff. It asked that the discom's letters dated 11.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 (denying rebate) be set aside, and sought refund/adjustment of excess amounts billed due to non-grant of rebate, with interest under Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
- Petition admitted at motion hearing on 07.04.2026.
- Respondent (MPMKVVCL) filed reply by affidavit dated 08.05.2026; petitioner sought two weeks to file rejoinder, which was granted.
- Petitioner, by affidavit dated 19.06.2026, citing subsequent developments and change in tariff provisions, sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty to refile if needed.
- At hearing on 23.06.2026, Commission allowed withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition if the need arises.
- No findings were rendered on the merits of the rebate claim, refund claim, or tariff clarification sought.
- Petition disposed of as withdrawn.
- Petitioner retains liberty to file a fresh petition on the same rebate/tariff clarification issue if need arises.
- No further compliance directed on either party at this stage.
- Any future petition will need to account for the 'subsequent developments and change in Tariff Provisions' cited by petitioner (FY2025-26 tariff order changes).
- Discom's billing practice on incremental consumption rebate under Clause HV 3.4(d)/1.36 remains unadjudicated and open to challenge.
- Parties should monitor updated Tariff Order provisions for clarity on rebate eligibility criteria.
- No refund or bill revision was ordered; petitioner's claim for interest under Section 62(6) was not addressed.
- • The underlying tariff ambiguity on rebate for incremental consumption (Clause HV 3.4(d)/1.36) remains unresolved - C&I HT consumers with similar billing disputes should track future MPERC rulings before assuming precedent.
- • No refund or rebate entitlement was established; consumers should not rely on this order for billing relief claims.
- • The withdrawal-with-liberty route shows MPERC's openness to consumers refiling once tariff provisions are clarified in subsequent Tariff Orders - useful procedural precedent for open-access/HT consumers.
- • Discoms may continue existing billing practice on incremental consumption rebates until a fresh petition or tariff order clarification is issued.
This is a procedural closure, not a substantive ruling - Techfab withdrew after tariff provisions changed, likely because the new FY2025-26 Tariff Order altered or clarified the rebate mechanism, reducing the need to litigate the old dispute. C&I consumers with pending or contemplated claims on incremental consumption rebates under HV 3.4(d) should review the current Tariff Order language carefully before assuming any billing relief; the core interpretive question remains open for a future petition, and discoms retain latitude to continue their existing billing approach until then.
Growthifye does not take responsibility for the accuracy of this information. Values are compiled from tariff orders published on the websites of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and distribution licensees (plus CEA / MoP / Grid-India), parsed automatically and shown with their source. Always verify against the signed order before any commercial decision. This one-pager is a Vidura-assisted summary of the official order; the signed order prevails.