Consumer forums must adhere to limitation periods stipulated by law when admitting complaints.

1. Leave granted. The questions which arise for consideration in this appeal are whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short "the District Forum") committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining and allowing the complaint filed by the respondent ignoring the objection of limitation raised by the appellants and whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 (for short "the National Commission") committed grave error by dismissing the appeal and the revision filed by the appellants against the order of the District Forum.

2. The respondent was allotted Industrial Plot No. 115, Phase I, Bahadurgarh subject to the terms and conditions embodied in the allotment letter dated 8-2-1978. Due to the respondent's failure to raise construction within the stipulated period, the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Bahadurgarh (Appellant 3) issued notices under various sub-sections of S.17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and cancelled the allotment vide order dated 11-7-1995.

3. After almost six years of the cancellation of allotment, the respondent filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 (for short "the 1986 Act") and prayed for setting aside the order of cancellation and for issue of a direction to Appellant 3 to restore the possession. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants, a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the same was barred by time. The appellants also pleaded that after cancellation of the respondent' s allotment, Plot No. 115 was allotted to M/s Janta Products Co. in March 1999, which had already started construction.

4. By an order dated 6-11-2001, the District Forum allowed the complaint albeit without deciding the issue of limitation, and directed the appellants to hand over physical possession of the plot to the respondent. The appeal and the revision filed by the appellants was dismissed by the State Commission and the National Commission respectively.

5. While issuing notice of the special leave petition on 10-4-2013, this Court recorded a detailed O.2, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
"One of the point which requires consideration in this special leave petition filed against the order dated 3-9-2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the National Commission') in HUDA v. Tej Refrigeration Industries1 is whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short 'the District Forum') had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed after six years of accrual of cause of action and whether the District Forum, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') and the National Commission committed serious error by not deciding the issue of limitation in the light of the provisions contained in S.24 - A of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986.
Prima facie, we are satisfied that the District Forum should not have entertained the complaint filed by the respondent which, as mentioned above, was filed after six years of the accrual of cause of action."

6. As per the office report, the notice has been duly served upon the respondent but no one has appeared on its behalf.

7. We have heard Shri Govind Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

8. The 1986 Act was enacted by Parliament in the backdrop of the fact that India has signed Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39 of 248 passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. With a view to fulfil the objectives enshrined in the gui