The Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.11.2020 of the State Commission in Appeal No. 346/2020 whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Complaint had been filed after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act which is of two years. 

2.   Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there are some typographical errors in the last line of the order, wherein the name of the Complainant is given as ‘Nitin Jain’ while the name of the Complainant is ‘Vinit Jain’.  It is also pointed out that the observations made by the State Commission in para 7 is also uncalled for.  It is further argued that opportunity would have been given to the Complainant to explain the day-to-day delay in filing the Complaint. 

3.   I have heard the Ld. Counsel and have perused the relevant records.  The admitted facts of the case that the Complaint had filed the Complaint challenging the demand penalty amount of ₹1,77,501/-, raised vide letter dated 26.05.2011.  The Complainant was complacent enough and had never challenged the said penalty demand till for the first time he sent a legal notice dated 24.11.2015.   It is apparent that the Complaint which was filed on 24.02.2016 challenging the demand raised on 26.05.2011 was beyond the period of litmiation prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. It is a settled law that issuance of legal notice does not revise fresh period of limitation. Hence, the Complaint apparently was barred by limitation and the State Commission has rightly dismissed the Complaint.  The typographical mistake although appears on the last line of the impugned order whereby ‘Nitin Jain’ is written instead of ‘Vinit Jain’ but the Complaint number mentioned in the said sentence is correct.  In view of the above the present Revision Petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.