Ashok Bhan, President—Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed the present Revision Petition.

2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:

Respondent/complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that the petitioner had floated a scheme in the year 1989 for allotment of built-up HIG (single storey) houses at Phase IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali having a covered area of 1010 sq.ft. at a tentative cost of Rs. 2,60,000/-. Applications were invited on the prescribed form with earnest money of Rs. 4,000/- by 10.03.1989. As per advertisement, the allotment was to be made by draw of lots and a waiting list of the remaining unsuccessful applicants was to be drawn to the extent deemed fit. Pursuant to the advertisement, the complainant sent his application for allotment of a built-up HIG (single storey) house along with requisite affidavit and earnest money of Rs. 4,000/-. The name of the complainant was registered on 09.03.1989 and was assigned No. 721/89. As the house was not allotted, the complainant filed the complaint with the District Forum with the aforesaid averments made in the complaint.

3. Petitioner, in its reply, submitted that the complainant could not be treated as a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). It was asserted that the amount of Rs.4,000/- was got deposited as a ‘Demand Survey’ conducted by the petitioner. That the complainant was not registered for allotment. That the sum of Rs. 4,000/- had been refunded to the complainant in the year 1997 and after the refund of the amount, the petitioner seized to be a ‘consumer’. It was asserted that along with the other applicants, the name of the complainant was included in the draw of lots held in the year 1989 and 1996 but he remained unsuccessful because of which, the said deposit was refunded to the respondent/complainant under the general policy of the petitioner. Respondent filed rejoinder to the same asserting that he was a ‘consumer’.

4. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to process the case of the complainant deeming him to be successful applicant as on 10.11.1989 and allot him a suitable HIG type house (single storeyed or a flat) for a total sale price out any available scheme prevalent in the year 1989. A compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with cost of Rs. 4,000/- as litigation expenses was also awarded.

5. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal and held that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioners had withdrawn/amended /cancelled the scheme at any stage and informed the complainant regarding the cancellation or withdrawal of the scheme. There was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had refunded the earnest money of the complainant.

6. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

7. The impugned Order of the State Commission is dated 29.06.2000. Certified copy of the impugned Order was received by the petitioner on 25.07.2000 and the present Revision Petition was filed in the year 2001. Counsel for the respondent took the preliminary objection that the Appeal was barred by time and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the year 2001, the limitation for filing the Revision Petition was not provided under the Act. With the amendment of the Act in the year 2005, limitation of 90 days has been provided for filing the Revision Petition. Counsel for the respondent contends that earlier also, if the Revision Petitions, if were filed beyond 100 days, were dismissed and as in the present case, the delay was more