Methodology for determining interest on differential Annual Fixed Charges was upheld.

The Damodar Valley Power Consumers’ Association and 31 of its member-consumers challenged the order dated 24 March 2025 passed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (“WBERC”) in Case No. APR(R)-33/23-24.

The principal issue considered in the present appeal concerned the methodology adopted by WBERC for calculating interest on differential Annual Fixed Charges (“AFC”) for the financial year 2019–20.

The Tribunal noted that the same legal issue had previously arisen in Appeal No. 15 of 2026, in which the Tribunal, by judgment dated 2 July 2026, had upheld WBERC’s methodology.

During the hearing, DVC requested that the present appeal be decided in accordance with that earlier judgment, while the Appellants left the question of its applicability to the Tribunal.

Whether the methodology adopted by WBERC for determining interest on differential AFC for 2019–20 was legally sustainable?

Whether the Tribunal’s decision in Appeal No. 15 of 2026, concerning the same methodology for a different period, applied to the present appeal?

Whether the Appellants should be permitted to raise the remaining issues arising from the WBERC order in a fresh appeal?

The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and judicial precedent by following its earlier judgment dated 2 July 2026 in Appeal No. 15 of 2026, which had upheld WBERC’s methodology for calculating interest on differential AFC.

It further relied on the principle that a determination concerning a common methodology may be applied consistently across different tariff years where the relevant orders are challenged, particularly where the factual and procedural circumstances are materially similar.

The Tribunal found that the controversy regarding interest on differential AFC in the present appeal was materially identical to that decided in Appeal No. 15 of 2026, the only distinction being the relevant year.

It clarified that the concluding observation in paragraph 37 of the earlier judgment was intended to ensure parity across all years in which the same methodology had been challenged, including years where the truing-up exercise reduced the interest payable and the consumers consequently had no independent grievance.

Since the earlier judgment had upheld WBERC’s methodology and the Appellants did not provide a specific basis for distinguishing its application to 2019–20, the Tribunal applied the same conclusion to the present appeal.

Appeal No. 18 of 2026 was consequently dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 2 July 2026 in Appeal No. 15 of 2026.

The Appellants were granted liberty to agitate the remaining issues by filing a fresh appeal. The appeal and all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.