Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 20.9.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (for short tate Commission. Vide impugned order, State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/opposite parties and has set aside the order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short istrict Forum 2. Brief facts are that petitioner (complainant in the District Forum) was allotted plot bearing No.328, measuring 299 sq. yards vide allotment letter no.1484 dt. 14.11.1994, in Sector-10, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. The petitioner had paid 8 instalments upto 28.12.1998 towards the cost of the said plot in addition to 10% earnest money, in all more than R.4,00,000/-. During the four years, the respondents failed to provide even basic civic amenities. The respondents demanded Rs.2,05,264.70 vide memo No.5682 dt.12.04.1999 alongwith interest. Petitioner requested for withdrawal of illegal demands. However, petitioner was informed that notices were issued to him, but he did not appear for personal hearing and as such plot stood resumed and 10% of the total consideration was forfeited under Section 17(4) of HUDA Act. When the development work was found complete, the petitioner approached the respondents to restore the plot and receive the balance consideration but all in vain. Thus, alleging it a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum. 3. Respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner. It was stated in the written statement that an amount of Rs.1,61,950/- was over due. Respondentscase is that several notices were issued to the petitioner but he, neither deposited the over due amount nor appeared before the Estate Officer for personal hearing despite notices. The balance amount of Rs.1,59,200/- was refunded to be allottee vide cheque no.820118 dt. 27.6.2002. Denying any kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the respondents prayed that complainant be dismissed. 4. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint. 5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable as per Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as he Act, according to which the complaint was to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has deposited a huge sum of Rs.4 lac. The date of allotment is of Nov, 1994 and the resumption order was issued in 2002. Moreover, huge amount remained with the respondent for about eight years. 7. Further, it is contended that since money was refunded by the respondents in 2002, the mere encashment of the cheque by the petitioner would not amount to waiver of the legal right available to him under the law. It is settled law that all actions are subject to just legal exceptions and hence the refunding of the money of the petitioner by the respondents after eight long years will not absolve the respondents of their liability and duty under the law. Hence, petitioner has every right to initiate proper proceedings