The main legal point established in the judgment is that complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act must adhere to the prescribed limitation period, as per Section 24A of the Act.

ORDER

Suresh Chandra, Member - Delay of four days in filing this revision petition is condoned.

2. The original complainant has filed this revision petition. She was allotted plot No. 1478 in Sector 24 at Panipat vide allotment letter No. 4585 dated 14.7.2000. She deposited Rs. 80,461 as 10% earnest money along with her application for allotment of plot. Thereafter, she was asked to deposit 15% of the consideration amount within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter but she did not deposit the said amount and for that reason allotment of the plot was cancelled and 10% earnest money was forfeited vide letter bearing memo No. 3294 dated 30.3.2001. However, she filed the present complaint bearing No. 171 on 14.6.2005 before the District Forum alleging the cancellation of allotment as deficiency in service on the part of OPs, who are respondents herein, saying that she had not deposited 15% money because there was no development in the area where the plot was situated. The complainant/petitioner, therefore, sought direction from the District Forum to the OPs to restore the allotment of the plot along with compensation. The OPs resisted the complaint with the averments that since the complainant had failed to deposit 15% of the consideration amount within 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter, the allotment of the plot had rightly been cancelled and the earnest money forfeited. Denying any deficiency in service, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The District Forum, Panchkula vide its order dated 26.9.2005 accepted the complaint by granting the following relief:

"...we accept the present complaint and direct the respondents to allot any of the plot, out of the plot Nos. 867, 868, 870 and 886 to the petitioner as an alternative plot to the petitioner, in lieu of original plot No. 148, Sector-24, HUDA, Panipat by charging from the petitioner, the interest, penalties etc. as admissible under the HUDA policy. If the alternative plot is much or less in area then the amount should be charged for the same in the manner mentioned above. It is made clear that the petitioner shall into be entitled to any interest on the amount of earnest money deposited by her earlier. The compliance of this order shall be made by the respondents within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OPs filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('state Commission' for short) which vide its order dated 8.12.2010 set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal. The petitioner has now filed this revision petition challenging the order of the State Commission.

4. We have heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record placed before us by the petitioner. It is seen from the impugned order that the State Commission found that the complaint of the petitioner before the District Forum was filed after more than four years and hence it was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since this important aspect was not considered by the District Forum while deciding the complaint, the State Commission following the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, (2009) CTJ 481 (SC), set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:

"At the very outset the question for consideration before is whether the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum was within limitation for seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted case of the parties that the allotment of the plot was cancelled by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 30.3.2001 due to non-deposit of 15% of the consideration amount