This consumer complaint has been filed on 20.12.2013 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5.00 crores in relation to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cause death of the daughter of the complainant  on 21.12.2000.  An application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been moved alongwith complaint seeking exclusion of the time consumed in prosecution of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for computing the period of limitation.  Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that although cause of action for filing the consumer complaint arose on 20.12.2000, the complainant as advised had lodged a separate complaint under section 304A IPC against the opposite parties and he was diligently pursuing the matter for the last more than 13 years.  Therefore, in view of section 14 of the Limitation Act,  for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the time consumed in the aforesaid criminal proceedings has to be included while computing the period of limitation for filing of the consumer complaint.

2.  In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads thus:

“Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963

14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in court without jurisdiction.

(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908 ), the provisions of sub- section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,-

(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the day on which it ended shall both be counted;

(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed to be prosecuting a proceeding;

(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction”.

3.         A bare reading of the above provision would show that benefit of exclusion of time for computing the period of limitation  is available to a plaintiff only in respect of another civil proceedings which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence and in good faith.  The Section do not extend this benefit in respect of the criminal prosecution / proceedings.  Admittedly, the petitioner for the last 13 years was prosecuting the criminal complaint which does not entitle the petitioner  to get benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act.  The application is, therefore, without any merit.  It is accordingly dismissed.

4.  Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act provides for two years limitation for filing of the consumer complaint.  The consumer forum,  however, can entertain the complaint even after the expiry of period of limitation if the sufficient cause for delay is shown.  In the instant case, the cause of action arose on 20.12.2000 but the complaint has been filed after inordinate delay of almost 13 years.  Except for filing an application under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the complainant has not shown any cause which prevented him from filing consumer complaint within the period of limitation of two years.  Therefore, in our opinion, the instant complaint is hopelessly time barred.  It is accordingly dismissed.

5.  No order as to costs.