PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The Petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order in First Appeal No. 243/2010 passed by the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, tate Commission Delhi, which dismissed the appeal, contrary to law and erroneously upheld the order and judgment dated 13.01.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as, istrict Forum New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are: The Petitioner/OP B.S.E.S Yamuna Power Ltd, installed an electricity connection in the house of the Complainant/Respondent on 15.11. 2003. The electricity bill for the use was not being issued by the OP, till 27.7.2008. In the meantime, the complainant made requests to OP on 22.09.2004, 25.10.2005 and again, on 29.01.2007, he visited the office of OP, but did not get the bill. However, on 27.07.2008, the OP issued a bill for Rs.1070/-, which was paid by the Complainant, on 01.10.2008. Thereafter, on 3.2.2009, the officials of the OP slapped a huge bill in the sum of Rs.98,840/- on the complainant, without any proper explanation. Hence, alleging deficiency in service by OP, the complainant filed complaint No. 207/2009, before the District Forum, on 20.03.2009. 3. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP/Petitioner to recover only Rs.9,026/- from the complainant, along with subsequent amount on current bills. It also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation. 4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed First Appeal (FA No. 243/2010) before the appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate Commission, Delhi. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. Hence, the OP preferred this revision petition. 6. We have heard both the parties. The learned counsel for OP brought our attention to the terms of Regulation 16(ix) and (iv) of the DERC Regulations, 2007, and averred that a consumer cannot be allowed to consume electricity, without paying the bills for consumption. It was the responsibility of the consumer to inform the OP, in writing, that he has not been receiving the bills relating to the consumption charges. Complainant has not taken any steps to get the bills from the Petitioner and enjoyed the consumption of electricity, for more than 5 years. 7. The counsel for OP contended that due to non-punching of data in the computer system, the meter was not punched, hence, bill of the Complainant was not raised. It was noticed by OP, first time, under the scheme of UBC (unbilled cases) and only after that, the OP punched the data in the system, on 17/07/2008 and downloaded reading as 28009 dated 26/09/2008. Thereafter, till April 2009, a bill for Rs.1,00,223/- including arrears was raised against the Complainant. 8. The OP put reliance upon the judgment held by this Commission in Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs. Swastic Industries (1996) CPJ 71 (NC), wherein it upheld the demand raised after a span of 9 years of actual consumption of electricity, clearly holding that raising bill for electricity consumed, howsoever belated, cannot be termed as eficiency of service The relevant portion of the said judgment stating the question of law in issue, reads as follows: e have perused the order in the case of M/s Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Another reported in AIR 1978 Bom 1978 369In the light of these statutory provisions, they held that there is no warrant to read the word due in the narrower sense viz. as only restricted to amounts within the period of limitation or which could be successfully claimed by a suit. In other words, there is no logical basis shown for preferring the narrower construction to the ordinary construction i.e. wider construction. The wider meaning would be more in accord with the scheme of the statutory provisions as also with commercial honesty. 9. It is well settled that normal law of limitation is not applicable for recovery of electricity dues. The period in question, arose before the implementation of Electricity Act, 2003, and will be governed by the provisions of Electricity Act, 1910. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in H.D. Shourie vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, reported in 32 (1987) DLT 73 Similar view was taken by Honle High Court of Delhi, in a recent judgment, in the case of B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum W.P. (C) 13556/2006 with Nalin Bhushan Chandlok vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. W.P. (C) 14873/2006 . 10. Therefore, we are of considered view that, the amount due and payable by the Complainant is public money. Electricity is not merely a commercial commodity, bought and sold, but a national energy resource. The Complainant has used and enjoyed the electricity for about one decade, without paying any bill. The series of judgments have recognized the legislative intent behind preventing loss to public money. This view was taken by this Commission in Swastic Industries Case(supra) and observed as follows: owever, the inefficiency of the functionaries of the Appellants, deplorable though it is, cannot and should not be made a ground to cause a loss to a public utility concern 11. As the OP has not specified about what was the rate per unit of electricity consumption, during 2003, we are also in dilemma as the OP raised a huge bill in the sum of Rs.1,00,223/- till April 2009, which needs further scrutiny and clarification. 12. Accordingly, we allow this revision petition and set aside the order of State Commission. The OP is directed to issue fresh bill with proper calculation as per prevalent electricity rates during the period November 2003 to April 2009. It was a case of contributory negligence, hence we direct that OP should charge only for units consumed and should not levy any penalty or interest. It is further directed that the amount due by the Complainant, be recovered in equal monthly installments, for 12 months, after proper verification and calculation. No orders as to costs.