JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral). The truck owned by the respondent herein suffered damage in an accident which occurred on 14.03.2009. Its owner, respondent herein holding qua the ill-fated truck an insurance cover issued by the petitioner herein, instituted a complaint against its insurer before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur. On 21.06.2013, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur dismissed the complaint instituted thereat by the respondent herein on the score of the complainant/respondent herein not falling within the definition of “consumer” rendering hence the complaint instituted before it by the respondent herein being not maintainable. The respondent herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, instituted an appeal therefrom before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla. The latter Court recorded a judgment in affirmation to the rendition of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur. However, in the operative part of its order, the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla reserved liberty to the complainant/respondent herein to avail any other remedy prescribed by law. The copy of the order of the learned H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla was supplied to the respondent herein on 1.10.2013. 2. The respondent herein instituted a civil suit against the petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.9 lcas along with interest constituting the damage suffered by the ill-fated truck owned by the respondent herein. The Civil Suit stood accompanied by an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act embodying averments in explication of the delay which occurred since the ill-fated truck suffering damage in an accident which occurred on 14.3.2009 till the institution of the suit before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court on considering the respective espousals of the contesting parties before it accepted the explanation purveyed in the apposite application preferred before it by the respondent herein qua the delay which occurred since the suffering of damage by the ill-fated truck owned by the respondent herein in an accident which occurred on 14.03.2009 till the institution of a civil suit before it at the instance of the respondent herein. There is no wrangle with the proposition of the civil suit preferred by the respondent herein before the learned trial Court standing mandated by the apposite Article of the Limitation Act of it being preferable within three years from the date of damage suffered by the truck owned by the respondent herein in an accident which occurred on 14.03.2009. Since, the respondent herein instituted a civil suit beyond a period of three years, its institution before the learned trial Court was palpably beyond limitation. However, the learned trial court in its impugned rendition was not off the mark in concluding while revering the observations recorded by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, of with liberty standing afforded to the respondent herein by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, to avail any other remedy prescribed by law other than the bonafidely mis-prosecuted remedy of the respondent herein ventilating her grievance against the petitioner herein by hers instituting a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur which for reasons recorded in the order of both the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum besides the order in affirmation thereto by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, being not maintainable thereat, concomitantly rendering the period or time spent by the respondent herein to bonafidely mis-prosecute her remedy therebefore standing excluded or unreckonable while computing the period of three years since the damage suffered by the ill-fated truck owned by her in an accident which occurred on 14.03.2009 upto three years thereafter. The apposite provisions of the Limitation Act embodied in Section 14 which stands extracted hereinafter do condone the delay as occurs besides exclude the time spent by the aggrieved by hers bonafidely setting in motion an inappropriate remedy before the inappropriate authority. Section 14 of the Limitation Act reads as under:- “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) Not withstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 the 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.” 4. Since, the respondent herein under a bonafide impression had mis-availed the remedy of hers ventilating her grievance by putting in motion the legal mechanism ordained in the Consumer Protection Act besides when its availment by her palpably appears to stand spurred under a bonafide legal advise purveyed to her by her counsel hence hers obviously availing it naturally hence the time spent by the respondent herein by hers bonafidely prosecuting an erroneous remedy or an inappropriate remedy by availing the legal mechanism contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act stood enjoined to be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed under the apposite Article of the apposite statute for hers ventilating her grievance in a Civil Suit filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Blaspur. Contrarily, the commencement or accrual of cause of action since the damage suffered by the ill-fated truck in an accident which occurred on 14.03.2009 did not cease within three years thereafter rather remained alive uptill the rendition of the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla on 13.09.2013 rather more precisely remained alive upto the time when a copy of its rendition stood supplied to the respondent herein on 1.10.2013. Since, the aforesaid period would stand excluded while computing the period of limitation prescribed in the apposite Article of the Limitation Act for the respondent herein standing yet foisted with a right to avail the appropriate remedy of for hers agitating her claim against the petitioner herein hers instituting a civil suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or even when the time since hers bonafidely failing to avail the appropriate remedy from 14.03.2009 uptill when a copy of the rendition of the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla stood supplied to her on 1.10.2013 would stand excluded from the apposite period of limitation for capacitating her to avail the appropriate remedy by hers instituting a civil suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdcition, nonetheless the respondent herein is enjoined to explain the delay from 1.10.2013 till the date of hers instituting a civil suit before the learned trial Court which stood instituted on 14.11.2013. The aforesaid delay is minimal. An explanation exists in paragraph 2 of the application of the said delay standing begotten by the respondent herein standing engaged in eliciting sound legal advise from a legal practitioner qua the appropriate legal remedy available to her. It appears that the engagement of the respondent herein in eliciting a sound legal advise from appropriate quarters qua the legitimate remedy available to her for securing her claim against the petitioner herein precluded her from 1.10.2013 to 14.11.2013 to institute the civil suit before the learned trial Court. Consequently, it appears that the respondent herein has projected a good sound and just reason in explaining the delay which occurred from 1.10.2013 uptill 14.11.2013 in the institution of the suit by her before the learned trial Court. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed. The order impugned before this Court is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications stand disposed of.