This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.09.2012 umari Manisha Thakur versus Sahara Indiapassed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 578/2010 vide which appeal against the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siwani was allowed and the OP, Sahara India, was directed to make available a house of the value of Rs.5 lakh to the complainant/respondent for which the complainant shall be liable to pay back the amount in 180 equal monthly instalments (EMI). The District Forum vide order dated 26.11.2009 had dismissed the said consumer complaint no. 75/2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sahara India floated a scheme known as Rajat Yojna which was a promotional scheme for their real estate business. The complainant opened an account in the local branch of the OP bearing account no. 22049203967 for investing in Rajat Yojana Investment Plan and deposited a sum of Rs.3,952/-. Under the scheme, draw of lots were to be taken out and prizes given to the account holders. As per letter dated 15.3.2005 sent by the OP to the complainant, she had won a prize in the quarterly draw taken out on 25.1.2005 and it was bumper prize under which house worth Rs.5 lakh was to be given to the complainant and she was to make the payment in 180 EMIs. It is the case of the complainant that after receiving the said letter, she started making contact with the local office of OP for getting the said house, but she was always misled and given false information by the OP. Vide letter dated 15.12.2005, the OP stated that house of above cost was not available with them in Sahara Citi Homes. The complainant continued to be in touch with the local branch office of the OP and then sent a notice on 3.10.2008 through Advocate, in reply to which, the OP sent a letter dated 18.10.2008 and complainant was requested to personally contact their Branch Office. However, even after contacting the said office, they denied giving house of that cost to the complainant. She then filed consumer complaint on 23.05.2009 before the District Forum, but the same was dismissed on 26.11.2009, saying that the complainant had not followed the terms and conditions relating to the sales promotion scheme. She filed an appeal against this order before the State Commission and vide impugned order, the OP was directed to make available a house of the value of Rs.5 lakh to the complainant, for which she was required to pay the amount in 180 EMIs. It is against this order that OP has filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/OP has drawn our attention to letter dated 15.03.2005 sent by OP to the complainant informing her that she had won a prize in the quarterly lucky draw which was a house worth Rs.5 lakh, for which the payment was to be made in 180 EMIs. Learned counsel stated that at the bottom of the said letter, the following words had been written: ubject to verification and as per terms and conditions of sales promotion scheme. 5. These terms and conditions have been defined in Annexure 7 to the petition, which is a circular issued by OP vide number 24/101/1982 and dated 17/3/2005. It has been stated in the said circular that all those depositors who have won houses through such draws, shall have to make a booking for house in the on-going Sahara City Home project and will have to deposit an advance 5% of the unit price of the house as booking amount. After the booking, the depositors will have to deposit due amount as per draw in 360 EMIs for persons who have won the first prize. After the said amount has been paid, the depositors will have to pay the differential amount of the cost of the house minus 5% advance booking minus the amount as per the lucky draw, in one single instalment. After making payment as per this procedure, the possession of the house is to be delivered by the OP to the depositors. This procedure has also been illustrated with an example contained in the said circular and makes it clear that booking of the house with 5% advance payment is to be made first, followed by deposit of 360 EMIs and then depositing the remaining amount in lump sum and get the possession of the house. Learned counsel argued that the complainant/respondent never followed this procedure and has not made any booking till date and hence he was not entitled to the benefit of the lucky draw. He further stated that the complainant could not be classified as a onsumerbecause she has not made any payment with the OP and hence the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable in the present case and there has been no deficiency in service on their part vis-vis the complainant. Learned counsel further argued that the complainant, in question, was also barred by limitation because under section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint can be made within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In this case, the complaint was first made on 23.05.2009 whereas the cause of action had arisen in 2005. The complaint deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the OP had failed to honour its commitment to provide house to the complainant in accordance with the results of the quarterly draw as per their own scheme. Learned counsel, however, could not give any reason as to why formal booking of house could not be made with the OP and why the necessary amount of 5% could not be deposited by them. On the point of limitation, the learned counsel stated that they had been in touch with the authorities of the OP and were also writing letters to them, but he could not explain as to why the complaint could not be filed in time in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 7. It is an admitted case of the parties that under the promotional scheme floated by the OP, quarterly draw was taken out on 25.01.2005 in which the complainant was declared successful for getting first bumper prize which was a house worth Rs.5 lakh and the payment of the same was to be made in 180 EMIs. A formal letter to this effect was issued by the OP to the complainant on 15.3.2005. It is clearly stated on this letter that the offer was subject to verification and as per terms and conditions of the Sales Promotion Scheme. It is very clear that under the said terms and conditions, as contained in the circular dated 17.3.2005 by the OP, the prize winners in such draw of lots are required to book a house in the Sahara City Homes project and they are required to deposit in advance, 5% of the unit price as booking amount. In the present case, neither such booking has been made, nor any amount deposited with the OP. We tend to agree with the contention of the OP that since the complainant has not deposited the necessary amount till today, he does not entitle himself to be covered under the category of onsumeras defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a limitation period of 2 years has been prescribed for filing the consumer complaints from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the complaint in question, was filed on 23.5.2009, i.e., after a period of more than four years from the date of draw of lots and also more than four years from the date of letter of intimation sent to the complainant dated 15.3.2005. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the complainant for not filing the petition with the period of limitation. The complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 8. From the foregoing discussion, it is clearly brought out that the complainant, although declared successful in the draw of lots as per the Scheme floated by the OP, did not take any action for booking any house in one of the schemes of the OP, neither she deposited the requisite booking amount. The consumer complaint was also made after the period of limitation was over. We, therefore, find no justification to grant any relief to the complainant. The order passed by State Commission is not based on a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas order passed by the District Forum shows clearly that the complainant has not followed the terms and conditions relating to sale promotion scheme and hence deficiency in service on the part of the OP is not proved. The impugned order passed is, therefore, set aside, order passed by the District Forum is upheld and the consumer complaint in question is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.