ORDER : After more than three years of taking possession of the flat constructed by the respondent, the petitioner sent legal notice dated 26.7.2007 alleging that there were defects in the construction and the area of the flat was less. The respondent sent reply dated 22.8.2007 and denied the allegation that the construction was defective. 2. The petitioners then filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the 1986 Act') and claimed compensation by alleging that the respondent was guilty of deficiency in service. The respondent contested the complaint on several grounds including the one that the same was barred by time. 3. The District Consumer Forum did not advert to the objection of limitation taken by the respondent and directed it to pay Rs. 3,18,000/- for less area, Rs. 5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. 4. The appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the ground that the complaint was barred by time and the District Forum committed serious error by overlooking the objection of limitation. 5. The petitioners challenged the order of the State Commission in Revision Petition No.2179/2009 but could not persuade the National Commission to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The National Commission reiterated the finding recorded by the State Commission that the complaint filed by the petitioners in 2007 alleging defective construction of the flat of which possession was delivered on 31.8.2004 was barred by limitation. SLP (C) No.21957/2012 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court by giving liberty to the petitioners to seek review of order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the National Commission. Armed with the order of this Court, the petitioners filed Review Application No.132/2012, which was dismissed by the National Commission by recording detailed reasons. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In our view, the concurrent finding recorded by the State Commission and the National Commission that the complaint filed by the petitioners was barred by time is based on correct analysis of the pleadings and the impugned order does not suffer from legal infirmity which may justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 7. In our view, the concurrent finding recorded by the State Commission and the National Commission that the complaint filed by the petitioners was barred by time is based on correct analysis of the pleadings and the impugned order does not suffer from legal infirmity which may justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 7. The provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners for contending that the period of limitation should be taken as three years from the date of possession has no bearing on the decision of the complaint filed under the 1986 Act because the limitation prescribed under Section 24A of that Act is two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. 8. With the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.