Reading Time: 2 minutes
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity delivered its judgment on 7 August 2025 in Appeal No. 61 of 2019 filed by Matrix Power (Wind) Private Ltd. against the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC), Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (HESCOM), and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. The case concerned a dispute over compensation for unutilized banked wind energy during November 2013 to March 2014. Matrix Power operates a 15 MW wind power project in Vijayapura District, Karnataka. The company claimed ₹31,25,134 from HESCOM, citing KERC orders from July and September 2014, which allowed payment for unutilized banked energy at 85% of the generic tariff. HESCOM rejected the claim, stating that the relevant wheeling and banking agreement (WBA) provided for lapse of unutilized energy without payment and that the 2014 KERC orders applied only prospectively.
Matrix Power approached KERC in August 2017 through Petition No. 134 of 2017, but the petition was dismissed on 26 July 2018. The company then appealed. The Tribunal considered three main issues: whether the claim was barred by limitation, whether the 2014 KERC orders could apply retrospectively, and whether compensation was due under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act or on equitable grounds.
On limitation, the Tribunal noted the cause of action arose on 31 March 2014, and the petition was filed over three years later, beyond the period prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. It rejected arguments of a “continuing cause of action” or suspension of limitation due to regulatory uncertainty. On retrospective application of the KERC orders, the Tribunal held the July and September 2014 orders were clearly prospective and could not be applied to the 2013–14 banking period. It found no legal basis to alter the contractual arrangement after expiry of the wind year.
On the claim under Section 70, the Tribunal observed that the WBA expressly provided that unutilized banked energy at year-end would lapse without payment. Since both parties entered the agreement with this term, there was no question of unjust enrichment or implied compensation. Equitable or policy considerations could not override clear contractual provisions.
Concluding that the claim was time-barred, unsupported by the regulatory framework, and excluded by the WBA’s express terms, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the KERC’s order. The decision ended the matter, confirming no compensation was payable for the unutilized banked energy in question.
