V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Petitioner/complainant has field the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ‘Act’) challenging order dated 17.4.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short, ‘State Commission’).

2. Brief facts that petitioner/complainant gave contract for construction of her house to respondent/o.p, vide agreement dated 25.11.2002. It is alleged that while constructing the house, respondent used material of inferior quality and no proper water roofing was done. Petitioner complained to the respondent and also sent him a notice. Due to deficiency on the part of the respondent, petitioner filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (for short, ‘District Forum’).

3. Respondent in its reply took the plea that he started construction of the house of the petitioner as per her opinion. It is further stated that he agreed to do the additional work apart from the agreement for which petitioner assured to give consideration for additional work. Respondent made the construction as per R.C.C. design. Petitioner has made vague allegations against him and has not filed any certificate of expert person for showing the lacuna in the construction

4. District Forum, vide order dated 14.12.2008, partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order;

1). “The respondent shall pay amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant, for causing deficiency in construction of the house of the applicant, within eight weeks from the date of receiving this judgment. If the said amount is not paid within the above period, then the respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the applicant till the realization of entire amount.

2). The other demands of the applicant are dismissed”.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondent filed an appeal for dismissal of the complaint, whereas, petitioner filed an appeal for enhancement.

6. Vide impugned order, State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed the appeal of the respondent. In the result, complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum was dismissed.

7. Hence, the present revision.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that District Forum had appointed a Court Commissioner who visited the premises. However, respondent did not raise any objection to the appointment of the Court Commissioner. Thus, deficiency in the construction has been fully established by the petitioner.

10. On the point of limitation, it has been contended by the counsel that when it came to the notice of the petitioner regarding short-fall of the construction, he gave a notice and as such limitation in filing the complaint shall start run from the date of service of the notice. Moreover, respondent never raised any objection with regard to the limitation. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of its case;

(i) Ram Sarup Gupta(dead) by L.R.s v. Bishnu Narain Inter College and others1 ;

(ii) Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta2;

(iii) Ramaniyam Real Estates Ltd. v. Triveni Apartments Owner Welfare Association3;

(iv) Narain Prasad Aggarwal (D) by LRs. v. State of M. P.4;

(v) Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co.v. National Insurance Co. & Anr.5 and

(vi) Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports & Anr.6

11. It is an admitted case, that agreement for construction of the house was executed on 25.11.2002 between the parties and final payment was made, vide receipt dated 19.8.2003. As per averments made in the complaint, cause of action for filing of the present case arose on 20.09.2005 when notice dated 17.8.2005 was issued to the respondent to do the incomplete work. So, on the face of it, the consumer complaint, which has been filed before the District Forum on