1. The Petitioner/ Opposite party(OP-1) Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (in short GMADA), previously known as , Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority (PUDA), invited applications for allotment of free-hold residential plots of various sizes, in Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainant /Respondent No.1, Smt. Archana Verma, applied for a 200 sq. yd. Plot and the applications were to be processed through the HDFC Bank Ltd., the respondent No 2 (R-2). In the draw of lots, held on 28-03-2001, accordingly, letters of Intent were sent to all the successful applicants, on same day, under the signature of the Estate Officer. The earnest money of all the unsuccessful applicants was returned, collectively, by the Petitioner to R-2 Bank for refunding the same to them. The Complainant/R-1, being a successful applicant, received a letter bearing No. RS/PUDA/23, dated 10-05-2001, from the Manager, Housing Development, Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC Ltd. the R-3), congratulating the complainant, on allotment of plot and offered a scheme for payment of allotment amount, as per their lending norms. The complainant wrote various letters to PUDA during 24/7/2001 to 20/7/2007 for allotment of plot, because the earnest money was not refunded to her. The HDFC bank also did not satisfy the complainant about the details of the refund of earnest money, till 21/11/2008. Also, they made them run, from pillar to post. After the draw, no refund of earnest money was made to the complainant, till 21/11/2008. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint CC/15/2009, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, istrict Forum and prayed for directions to GMADA, for allotment of plot to her. 2. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed OP-1 to allot plot of 200 sq. yard to the Complainant, as per terms and conditions of the original scheme within two months, from the date of the order and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. District Forum, the OP No.-1/Petitioner herein, filed the First Appeal in FA/831/2009, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate commission. 4. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, with costs of Rs.3,000/-. 5. The petitioner challenged the order of State Commission through this Revision Petition. 6. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner, at the admission stage. His main argument is that the complaint itself, is time barred, which was filed after a period of 7 years from the date of cause of action. The Complainant is not a onsumer till the allotment takes place. The Ex. C-4, a letter giving congratulations to the Complainant, was written by HDFC, which is not the parent body of HDFC bank. It was sent as an information to the applicants, about their scheme, for financial assistance. 7. As the Complainant was an un-successful candidate and her earnest money has not been refunded by OP- 2 & 3. We have perused a number of correspondence letters, dated 24.05.2007, 17.09.2007, 14.11.2007, 09.07.2008, 11.02.2009, 04.03.2009, 13.02.2009 addressed by PUDA to the HDFC, Zonal Head. However, there is no evidence to show that neither the refund of the earnest money by OP 2 and 3 was made, nor plot has been allotted by OP-1, to the Complainant, till 2007, hence, it is a continuous cause of action. Similar view was taken in the case ransport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. (2007) by the Honle Supreme Court. The Complaint was filed in the year 2008, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not barred by statutory limitation. 8. We have perused the evidence on record. The District Forum recorded the evidence of Jagjit Singh ( OP / RW-1), who, in his cross-examination deposed as under: cannot admit or deny if the Complainant Archana Verma was one of the applicants for the allotment of the plots, draw of which was held on 28.03.2001. It is however, a fact that HDFC Bank had been authorised by PUDA to accept applications with earnest money from the applicants for the said draw. This is also a fact that my bank was to refund the earnest money to those applicants, who were unsuccessful, on intimation in this regard received from PUDA. PUDA must have sent the intimation of successful candidates to my bank and also a request/direction to refund the money belonging to the unsuccessful applicants with detail of the amount to be refunded to each unsuccessful applicants. The list of successful/unsuccessful applicants sent to my bank by PUDA, in this case, is not available in the records of the bank. The bank is unable to tell whether it has or has not returned the amount in question (Rs.67,000/-) to the Complainant Archana Verma xxxxxxx xxxx...xxxx The bank is not having any record to show whether the amount of Rs.67,000/- belonging to the Complainant, Archana Verma was refunded to her by the bank or whether, it was refunded to her by the bank or whether it was refunded to PUDA, in the year 2001, which showed the break-up of the amount belonging to different applicants. The complete account statement of the refund made by my bank to PUDA, in the year 2001 is Ex R-11, summary of which is Ex R-8. Ex R-11, does not show or indicate, whether the amount was refunded to the Complainant and, if so, by what mode? Letter copy of which is Ex C-4, was never sent by my bank to the Complainant. It appears to have been sent by the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., which is a different entity, then, the HDFC Bank. We never sent any congratulatory letter to the Complainant about he being a successful applicant 9. Similarly, on perusal of evidence, Ex. R-1, of S.C. Rana, Estate Officer of PUDA , it appears that he has categorically not admitted or denied whether, Archana Verma was a successful candidate, for the allotment in the draw of lots, held on 28.03.2011. We have perused the vital letter dated 20/7/2007, written by the complainant (Annexure P11) to the OP-1, about the Fraud perpetrated by staff of PUDA, in the said allotment. The OP did not reply and turned a deaf ear, towards it. the relevant paras of said letter are reproduced, as below : Para 3 It was noticed that Draw-slips at page -424 of the aforesaid register was a copy of Draw slip. Since the Draw slip was a part of application submitted by applicant, it should be in riginal As per PUDA brochure, pplication found incomplete or defective in any respect is liable to be rejected. Para 4 The Form nos. on the Draw slips at page nos. 21 & 322 of the above registers were over-written/manipulated, which indicate towards mal-practices in PUDA/GMADA. Para 5 The original certified list of successful applicants in 200sq. yard, General Category was not made available, despite repeated requests. 10. Consequently, we have perused several correspondence letters addressed by PUDA to the HDFC Zonal Head, even then, there is no iota of evidence showing that earnest money was refunded to the complainant, by the HDFC bank. Thus, it appears that the PUDA and HDFC are working in cahoots and unnecessarily playing ide-and-seekgame, with the complainant. Considering the entirety that some over-writings/cutting in the PUDA registers, containing Draw-slips of successful allottees, also, a photocopy has been placed instead of the original, withholding the list of successful/un-successful candidates by OP-1 as well as OP-2 & 3, and furthermore, the statement of RW-1, S. K. Rana, we are of considered view that the OP-1, was at fault and it was a malafied act on the part of the OPs, who did not issue the allotment letter in favour of the Complainant. 11. It is also surprising to note that, all three OPs which are Public Bodies are unable to maintain their records properly, in the ordinary course of their business. Concealment of such records, lead us to draw adverse inference, in this case, where the Complainant should have been be one of the successful applicants in the draw of lots. Both the fora below, have given concurrent findings and we affirm the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.