IMPORTANT POINT
Section 14 of Limitation Act applies only to a wrong forum.

K.R. Udayabhanu, President—The appellant is is opposite party/Bank in O.P. 379/2004 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. the appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 and compensation of Rs.5,000 and cost of Rs.500 to the complainant.

2. It is the case of the complainant is that he had presented a cheque of Rs.20,000 dated 30.6.2000 to the opposite party through his bank, Federal Bank, Vengara Branch on 27.7.2000. The same was returned with the endorsement refer to drawer. The complainant initiated proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act in JFCM Court by Kozhikode as C.C.No.982/2000 against one Unnikrishnan who issued the cheque. The above complaint was dismissed as the cheque was not bearing account number of the above Unnikrishnan in the opposite party bank. The appeal filed before the High Court was also dismissed. The allegation is that it is on account of lapse of the opposite party in not mentioning the account number on the cheque that the criminal proceedings happened to be ended in acquittal of the accused. Although the bank Manager was summoned he had stated that in the absence of the account number the account of the accused could not be traced. The conduct of the opposite party in not mentioning the account number of the account holder in the cheque is in violation of banker’s duties in this regard. Hence, the complaint seeking for the realization of the amount covered by the cheque and compensation of Rs.50,000 towards the amount spent for the litigation etc.

3. The opposite party has contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the drawer of the cheque has not been impleaded.

So also it is contended that there is no consumer relationship with the complainant and the opposite party and hence the complaint is not maintainable.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of PW1, Exs. A1 to A6.

5. The Forum rejected the contention; that the complaint is barred by limitation on the ground that the complainant was proceeding in the criminal court and in the High court and it is after the dismissal of the appeal in the High Court on 24.11.2003 that the complainant filed the complaint before the Forum on 10.11.2004 and after issuing lawyer notice on 06.01.2004. It is pointed out by the complainant that the cheque was dishonoured on 27.7.2000 and the present complaint has been filed on 10.11.2004 i.e. after four years of the occurrence of the cause of action.

6. We find that the order of the Forum in the regard is erroneous. Only if the person was pursuing the remedy in a wrong court that is not having jurisdiction the period of limitation is exempted under sec.14 of the Limitation Act and not for the reason that the person was pursuing the matter in the proper court. In the instant case we find that the complainant had perused the Section 138 of N.I. Act in the JFCM court. Evidently the above court was the proper form. Hence we find that the complaint is barred by limitation vide Section 24(A) of C.P. Act 1986. We find that on the above ground alone the order of the Forum cannot be sustained.

In the result, the order of the Forum below is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Appeal allowed.

********