Ram Narayan Tiwari (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Anr vs The Chairman Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors on 10 September 2026

J U D G M E N T

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The appellant, a consumer of electricity in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the 4th respondent Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) thereby rejecting the claim of the appellant for compensation under Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The facts of the case lie within very narrow compass and emerge undisputed between the parties.

3. The appellant had been availing supply of electricity from the 2nd respondent i.e. the distribution licensee for agricultural purposes. The electricity connection had been taken by the appellant for running a private tubewell. It appears that the Executive Engineer of the 2nd respondent carried out an inspection on 25.11.2018 and found certain facts which, purportedly, made out prima facie case of theft of electricity from the said connection. The electricity supply was disconnected on the same date. The First Information Report (FIR) regarding these facts was lodged with the concerned Police Station on 27.11.2018, clearly beyond the stipulated period of 24 hours as envisaged under clause 8.1 of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005. However, neither a police report nor a criminal complaint has been filed before the competent special court dealing with the offences under the Electricity Act, 2003, till date in pursuance to the inspection carried out in the wake of said FIR.

4. Final assessment order came to be issued by 3rd respondent on 09.04.2019 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

5. The appellant filed a petition bearing no.1497/2019 before the Commission under Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with clause

8.2 of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005, seeking directions for immediate restoration of electricity supply as well as action against respondents for gross violation of the provisions of the Code which included payment of compensation to the appellant. The petition was dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 16.03.2020 on the ground of maintainability in view of certain legal remedies which had been pursued by the appellant before approaching the Commission with the petition. The appellant assailed the said order dated 16.03.2020 of the Commission before this Tribunal by way of appeal no.140/2020 which was allowed vide judgment dated 22.12.2020 thereby reviving the proceedings of the petition before the Commission with the direction to the Commission to consider and adjudicate the same on merits in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the Commission revived the petition no.1497/2019 and held fresh proceedings w.e.f. 11.01.2021. In the order dated 27.04.2021, the Commission recorded the agreement of the parties to the effect that appellant shall make payment of the final assessment as per the statement to be prepared by the respondent. The Commission also directed the Executive Engineer to restore the connection of the appellant within 24 hours after the said payment was settled by the appellant. As recorded in the impugned order of the Commission, the appellant made a payment of

Rs.42,896/- after adjusting the amount of monthly bills that had already been paid by him.

7. Finally, the Commission held the appellant not entitled to the compensation under Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003, on the ground that the appellant was in arrears on account of final assessment and as such no compensation could be awarded in view of Regulation 8.1 of UPERC (Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2019. However, the Commission found the conduct of the distribution licensee in not lodging an FIR within 24 hours of the detection of the theft and in failure to file a case before the special court within 30 days of disconnection of electricity to the appellant’s premises as an act of non-compliance of the provisions of the Electricity Act, Rules and the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and decided to initiate separate suo-motu proceedings in this regard. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Commission is extracted hereinbelow: - “6. The Commission is of the view that APTEL in its order dated 22.12.2020 revived the proceedings arising out of the Petition under Section 57 of the electricity Act on which the impugned order was passed by the State Commission and directed that it be considered and adjudicated upon by by the Commission on merits in accordance with law. In regard to the matter for compensation to the Petitioner, the Commission undertook the proceedings under the UPERC

Standards of Performance Regulations, 2019 as per which compensation can only be awarded in case no arrear is due on the Petitioner. As the petitioner had arrears on account of final assessment no compensation could be awarded, and no action could be taken. However, after the settlement of the final assessment, the electricity connection was restored by the Respondent hence, no compensation is applicable.

7. On perusal of provisions of the Electricity Act 2003, Electricity Rules 2005 and Clause 8.1 and 8.2 of the Electricity Supply Code 2005, the Commission finds that in case where the authorized officer of the licensee fails to lodge an FIR within 24 hours or failure to file a case before the Special Court within 30 days of disconnection, it shall be construed that the licensee has failed to achieve and maintain the standards of performance. This conduct of distribution licensee is non-compliance of the provisions in the Act, Rules and the Electricity Supply Code 2005.

8. The Commission decides to initiate separate Suo-Moto proceedings and direct distribution licensees to make submission in regard to failure to comply with the above provisions in such cases, as to safeguard the interest of the consumers as well as distribution licensees. Accordingly, if necessary, proceedings under Section 142 of the Act may be initiated by the Commission against the licensees for non-compliance of above mentioned provisions of Act and Electricity Supply Code 2005.

9. Let a proceeding under section 142 of the Electricity Act be registered.”

8. We have heard Mr. Vatsal Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rajiv Srivastava, learned counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and Mr. C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the learned counsels.

9. The appellant is claiming compensation from the distribution licensee i.e. 2nd respondent on account of failure on its part to lodge an FIR with regards to the incident of theft of electricity within 24 hours of disconnection and for failure to file a case before the special court within 30 days of disconnection of electricity to the appellant’s premises. The appellant relied upon provisions of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005, clauses 8.1(xi), 8.2(1) and (x) of which are relevant and are extracted hereinbelow: - “8.1 (a) Procedure to be adopted by licensee for Inspection, Provisional Assessment Hearing and Final assessment in case of theft of electricity under section 135 of the Act. …

(xi) In the matters where prima facie evidence of theft is found, the authorized officer of the licensee shall lodge an F.I.R. within 24 hours of disconnection.

In case where the authorized officer of the licensee fails to lodge an F.I.R. within 24 hours of disconnection it shall be construed that the licensee has failed to achieve and maintain the standards of performance, and the aggrieved consumer can directly approach the Commission for the failure of the licensee in discharging its obligation under Section 57 of the Act. … 8.2 Procedure for taking cognizance in case of theft of electricity:

(i) As per the provisions of the Act and in accordance with the order dated 8.6.2005 of Ministry of Power under Electricity Rules, 2005 and power to remove difficulties, and Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007, the procedure in clause 8.1 above and as provided herein, does not absolve the authorized officer of the licensee or supplier, from lodging the complaint in a police station within 24 hours from the time of disconnection and filing a case before the Special Court, within 30 days from the date of disconnection.

On failure of file a case before the Special Court within 30 days of disconnection, it shall be construed that the licensee has failed to achieve and maintain the standards of performance, and the aggrieved consumer can directly approach the Commission for the failure of licensee in discharging its obligation under Section 57 of the Act, and

the authorized officer of licensee or supplier shall restore supply on interim payment of assessed amount, calculated at 1.0 times of existing tariff, less payment already made by consumer for the period of assessment within 48 hours of such deposit or payment. The Authorized Officer shall subsequently take action for filing the case before the Special Court. …

(x) Cognizance of the offence –

(a) A Complaint in writing relating to the commission of such offence shall be lodged against the consumer or person by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their authorized officers in this regard or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of Licensee or a Generating Company, as the case may be, within 24 hours of disconnection, in the Police Station of that area having Jurisdiction.

(b) The police shall investigate the matter in accordance with the general law applicable to the investigation of any offence. For the purposes of investigation of the offence under the Act or this Code, the police shall have all the powers as available under the Crpc 1973.

(c) The police shall, after investigation, forward the report along with the F.I.R. lodged under sub-clause (a) above to the Court for trial under the Act, i.e. a Special Court, or in absence of a Special Court, any other Court.

Provided that, the Court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act, upon a report of a police officer filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) above, the complaint for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act, may also be filed by the Appropriate Government or the Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or an authorized officer of Licensee or a Generating Company, as the case may be directly in the appropriate Court.

(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every Special Court, or in absence of Special Court, any other Court, shall take cognizance of an offence referred to in sections 135 to 140 of the Act and Section 150 of the Act, without the accused being committed to it for trial, and such offence shall be cognizable and non-bailable.

(f) The cognizance of the offence under the Act, shall not in any way prejudice the actions under the provision of the Indian Penal Code.

(g) The final assessment done by the licensee’s assessing officer in case of theft, is also subject to adjudication by the Court.

(h) In case of the decision of the Court that theft is not established, the charges leveled and assessment made by the licensee against the consumer or person shall be withdrawn in writing and the connection shall be restored through the original meter.” (Emphasis supplied)

10. Perusal of the above clauses of the Code clearly reveals that the distribution licensee is duty bound to lodge an FIR with the concerned Police Station within 24 hours of disconnection of the electricity upon discovering theft of electricity and subsequently to file a complaint with the concerned special court within 30 days from the date of disconnection. It is also made clear in clause 8.1 that in case of default on either count, it shall be treated as a failure on the part of discom to achieve and maintain the standards of performance within the meaning of Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003, giving rise to a right to the concerned aggrieved consumer to approach the appropriate Commission in this regard.

11. Section 57 of the Electricity Act, 2003 becomes material in this background and is extracted hereinbelow: -

“Section 57. (Consumer Protection: Standards of performance of licensee):

(1) The Appropriate Commission may, after consultation with the licensees and persons likely to be affected, specify standards of performance of a licensee or a class of licensees.

(2) If a licensee fails to meet the standards specified under subsection (1), without prejudice to any penalty which may be imposed or prosecution be initiated, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the person affected as may be determined by the Appropriate Commission:

Provided that before determination of compensation, the concerned licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(3) The compensation determined under sub-section (2) shall be paid by the concerned licensee within ninety days of such determination.”

12. Sub-section 2 of this statutory provision clearly provides that if the distribution licensee fails to meet the standards specified under sub-section 1, it shall be liable to pay compensation to the affected person as may be determined by the appropriate Commission. However, proviso attached to

clause 7.9 of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005, makes the entitlement of the affected person to compensation subject to the condition that he has no arrear of electricity dues as on date when the distribution licensee is stated to have committed failure to meet standards of performance. The said clause of the Code is extracted hereinbelow: - “7.9 Compensation (a) The Licensee shall be liable to pay, to the affected consumers, compensation as specified in Annexure 7.1 for Licensees failure to meet the guaranteed standards of performance. With respect to performance related to metering and billing, of Annexure 7.1, the liability of compensation on Licensee shall be effective from the date of enforcement of the Code. The liability of compensation in other standards of performance shall be applicable from such date the Commission may direct by order or notification issued for the purpose.

(b) Compensation, depending upon the nature of the complaint, would be released by the concerned Licensee automatically within 90 days of its, or it would be claimed by

the consumer from the licensee, as specified in Annexure 7.1. Provided that:

i. Compensation shall be applicable to only those consumers who have no arrears on electricity dues, and on conditions, which are not covered or incidental to factors mentioned in clause 9.1 of this code.

ii. The licensee shall compensate the person(s) affected not later than three billing cycles.

iii. No claim for compensation shall be entertained if the same is filed later than a period of ninety days from the date of rectification of the deficiency in performance standard.

iv. Such compensation shall be paid or adjusted in the consumer’s bill issued subsequent to the award of compensation.

v. Matters related to grievance of any consumer related to compensation, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in the Business Regulation for filing a

petition, and the procedure set out in the Consumer Grievance Redressal Regulations.

vi. The Commission may by a general or special order after hearing the Licensee and the affected consumer(s) / consumer groups, release the Licensee from the liability to compensate the consumers for any default in the performance of any standard if the Commission is satisfied that such default is for reasons other than those attributable to the Licensee and further that the Licensee has otherwise made efforts to fulfil his obligations.” (Emphasis supplied)

13. Thus, it is manifest that only those affected persons are entitled to claim compensation from the distribution licensee for its failure to meet the standards of performance who are not in arrears of electricity dues. Further, we also find Regulation 8.1 of UPERC (Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2019 also relevant in the above context and the same is reproduced hereinbelow: - “8. COMPENSATION MECHANISM 8.1 If licensee fails to meet the guaranteed standards of performance as specified in Schedule-I, licensee shall

pay compensation to the affected person upon lodging of a claim for compensation. The compensation to be paid by the licensee to the affected person is specified in Schedule-III of these Regulations. If the Consumer has any arrear, beyond 30 days, on the date of filing the claim for compensation then no compensation shall be payable to the consumer.” (Emphasis supplied)

14. These regulations, even though issued in the year 2019, reiterate what has been envisaged in clause 7.9 of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005, that the compensation shall be payable to only those consumers who have no arrears on electricity dues beyond 30 days of the date of filing of the claim for compensation.

15. In the instant case, the petition claiming compensation under Section 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Supply Code, 2005 was filed by the appellant on 02.08.2019. The final assessment bill had been issued by the 3rd respondent on 09.04.2019, as already noted. The appellant has, concededly, not challenged the said bill in any forum/court. The payment against the said final assessment bill was made by him in the year 2021 in pursuance to the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by the Commission in the

petition under reference. Thus, admittedly the appellant was in arrears of electricity dues in the year 2019, i.e. at the time of filing the claim for compensation, and therefore, has been rightly held not entitled to compensation by the Commission in the impugned order.

16. Considering the above discussion, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the Commission. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of September, 2026.

(Ajay Talegaonkar) Technical Member (Electricity)

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member

REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE

tp