(1.) FEELING aggrieved of the order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed being barred by time the appellant had preferred this appeal. The application for condonation of appeal was declined. Admittedly, the appellant invested Rs. 50,000/ - with respondent No. 2 and was given post dated cheques against the principal and interest, on presentation the cheques were dishonoured. The appellant filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and all the respondents were summoned as accused. Respondent No. 2 gave an undertaking before the Magistrate on 1.3.1999 that he was to make payment to the appellant. It was after this undertaking and the failure of the respondent to make the payment that the instant complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum took the view that mere undertaking of the respondent to make the payment did not imply acknowledgement of dues. Therefore, 1.3.1999 cannot be treated as the date of giving rise to the cause of action.
(2.) ON the face of it, the impugned order is untenable as the undertaking before the Court had stronger footing than in the acknowledgement of dues. It was in view of the undertaking given by respondent No. 3 that the appellant withdrew the criminal complaint filed against the respondent and, therefore, the cause of action for the purpose of consumer Forum last arose on 6.3.1999. The complaint was filed before the District Forum on 19.2.2001 which was very well within the limitation period of two years. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside with the direction to the District Forum to decide the complaint on merit which shall stand at its original number. Party shall appear before the District Forum on 17.2.2005 for the aforesaid purpose.
(3.) THE Bank guarantee/FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned forthwith after completing necessary formalities.