The period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, commences from the date of communication of the order by the District Forum to the parties free of charge, as per Rule 4(10) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988.

Mr. Faizan Uddin, J. — Delay condoned.

2. Leve granted.

3. The appellant Housing Board is a statutory body constituted for the purposes of providing cheap and economical housing facilities. The land for construction of tenements is provided by Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter HUDA) which is also a statutory body. The land is acquired by the appellant-Board from HUDA under stipulation with regard to enhancement in the price of the land consequent upon judicial pronouncement. The appellant-Board invited applications for allotment of houses/flats from the economically weaker sections, belonging to LIG/MIG category. The appellant-Board issued allotment letters to various applicants specifically mentioning in Clause (9) of the allotment letters that as a result of the land award or arbitration proceedings, etc. if there is an increase in the cost, the Board may enhance the price of the dwelling houses/ flats allotted to them. This condition was reiterated in Clause 2(W) of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement (Form A) entered into under Section 11(4) of the Housing Board, Haryana (Allotment, Management & Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1972. It was also provided that there shall be no enhancement in the price after a period of 7 years from the date of allotment. According to the appellant-Board, this Clause 2(W) of Form 'A' of the Regulations was, however, amended by a notification dated 26.5.1985 whereby a proviso was inserted to the effect that the restriction of 7 years shall not be applicable when the escalation in the price is due to judicial pronouncement or award of an Arbitrator.

4. Consequent upon the judicial pronouncements enhancing the compensation granted to the land owners, HUDA also raised an additional demand on 5.3.92 on the appellant-Board demanding a sum amounting to Rs. 27,96,011.80 (approximately) for the land given to the appellant-Board. In pursuance of this demand by HUDA, the appellant-Board in turn, issued additional demand letters to its various allottees of the houses/flats towards the enhanced price of the land as per terms of the agreement and the regulations. In order to avoid payment of interest on the demand by HUDA the appellant-Board paid the entire amount to HUDA in May, 1992 including the interest that had accrued till the date of said payment.

5. Three complaints were made before the District Consumer Forum, Kurukshetra by the respondents herein in the three appeals against aforementioned additional demand raised by the appellant-Board by contending that in view of Clause 2(W) of the agreement the additional demand was barred by time having been made after more than 7 years’ of the allotment of houses/flats. The appellant-Board defended the said complaints by disputing the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to entertain such a complaints besides other grounds of attack. The appellant-Board took the stand that there was no 'service' rendered within the meaning of Clause ‘o’ of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter the Act) nor there was any 'deficiency' in the service within the meaning of Clause (g) of Section 2(1) of the Act. According to the appellant the dispute, if any, related to an alleged breach of the terms of contract for which the remedy lies in the Civil Court and not in the Consumer Forum.

6. The District Forum by its order dated 22.10.92 rejected the objections and defence set up by the appellant-Board, allowed all the three complaints and quashed the additional demand made by the appellant-Board. The appellantBoard filed three separate appeals on 30.11.92 before the State Commission against the aforementioned order dated 22.10.92 quashing the additional demands. The State Commission took the view that all the three appeals as were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 15 of the Act and as no sufficient cause for condonation was pleaded, dismissed all the three appeals as barred by time. Being aggri