High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrrdra prayinq that in the circumstances sitated in the affidavit filed therewith, th,: High Court may be pleased to issue an order, drrection, or Writ more in the na.:ure of a certiorari. a.By calling for the records pertaining to FA.r.A.No..r 73 ot 2025 in F.l\ No 46 of 2o2s against c c No 106 0t 2022 dated 25.0g-2023 0n the fi e of F:irst Respondent and set aside the same, b.Consequenfly, to allow the FA. lA. No 173 o,t 2025 by condoning the delay of 226 days and direct the .1st ResponJent to restore the F A No- 46 of 2025 t<t hear the appeal on merits. To set_aside lhe orcler clated 03_06- 2025 passed in FA rA No. 173 0F 2025 in FA No. 461202.; and to set aside the consequentiar order dated 03-06-2025 passed in FA No 4.6t2025 permitting the Respondents No 2 to 4 to withdraw the amount deposite(J to by, the petitioners herein as statutory deposit. d.to award the costs of this Writ oetition lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition uncrer Section 151 cpc praying that in the ciicumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C.urt may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to tr e awa rdlorder dated 25 09-2023 passed in cc No. 106 oF 2022 before the Hon'trre District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Warangal. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI T.p.RAVl SHANKER , counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FoR crvrL suppLrErs Counsel for the Respondent No.2to7 : The Court made the following: ORDER -_ . / -7/ THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITIO N No.191 66 0F 202s ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinantl Kumar Shavili) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learnecl counsel for both the parties have informed the Court that the subject matter of the present Writ petition is squarely coverecl by the order, dated 04.07.2025, passed by this Court in W.p.No.19063 of 2025 and following the aforesaic.l orcler, the present Writ petition also deserves to be disposed of. \ t

2. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ petition also clcscrves to be disposed of in terms of the order, dated 04.07.2025, passed bv this Court in W.P.No.19063 of 2025

3. Accordingly, the present Writ petition is clisposed of in terms of the order, dated 04.02.2025, passecl hy this Court in W.P.No.19063 of 2025 The order, clared 03.06.2025, passed in F.A.IA.No.173 of 2025 in F.A.No.46 of 2025 and the order, dateci03.06.2025, passed in F.A.No.46 of 2025, bv rhe'lelangana State Cor*-rqumer Disputes Redressal Commission, H vderabact, are set asicle and the matter is remandeci to the State Commission. The State Commission shall condc,ne the delay in filing the subject appeal on payment of costs of Rr;.10,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 to 4 by the petitiorLers On such pa),ment, the State Commission shall hear the appeal on merits by giving opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. N'Iiscellaneous Applications, if any, penclirg in tl-ris Writ Petition shal I stancl closed. //TRUE COPY// S \ KRISHNA GISTRAR OFFICER To 1 2 3 One CC to SRI T.P.RAVI SHANKER, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs b GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for lhe St:rte of Telangana [OUT] Two CD Copies. (Along With Annex At Hyderabad Copy Order O'f 04171)025 Passed By wp.1 9063 Of 2025 this Order ) W BSK BS I T-1 HIGH COURT / DATED:07107t2025 ) ',t /r -)1.. :.-- _..-\_- \t'l .r;.t/.4\ v/c'\ 2\ 6 16 SIP 206 a_ 2. -\' ,1 .', ,..,/ Dt 'I T 7 ORDER WP.No.19166 of ZOZi DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Gsl t) q THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.19063 oF 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, clated

77.04.2025, passed in F.A.IA.No.2387 of 2024 in F.A.No.952 of 2024 by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, 'the State Commission'), whereby, the subject F.A.IA. filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 744 days in filing the appeal was dismissed and consequently, the appeal was reiected I 2 Heard Sri Rajan Sri Krishnan, learned counsel representing Sri T.P. Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C. Nagaraju, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent No.1.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 filed a complaint i.e. C.C.No.526 of 2022, against the petitioners before 2 AKS,J & ETD,J W.l' No 1gtr63 of 2025 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad r'for short, 'the District Commissiorr'), complaining that the peti tioners have not honored the polir:v talcen by the hrrsband of respondent No.2 and that on the ground of deficiency of service, she was claiming compe nsation of Rs.49,94,0977l- together with interest at the r,rte of 1E% per annum. The District Commission oide order, rlated 27.03.2024, was pleased to allow the said complaint. Aggrie'zed by the same, the petitioners have preferred the subject appeal befone the State Commission along with the subject F.A.IA..seelcing to condone the delay of t44 days in filing the appeal. The State Commission, oide impugned order, dated 11.04.2025, dismi:rsed the subject F.A.IA. and rejected the appeal, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contr:nded that instead of dismissing the condone delay applir:ation, the State Commission ought to have imposed costs fol conrfoning the delay ancl ought to have heard the case on m:rits. The State 3 AKS,J & ETD,J W.P No. 19063 ot 2025 Comrnission has mechanically dismissed the condone delay application. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition bv setting aside the impugned order, dated 71.04.2025, and further, direct the State Commission to hear the appeal on merits.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 had contended that the petitioners have not cleared the policy taken by the husband of respondent No.2 and therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly approached the District Comrnission and the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of 1Rs.45,07,097 /- along with interest at the rate of 9% per arutum and further directed that the petitioners shatl pay Rs.1,00,000/- towarcls compensation for causing mental agony, physical trauma and inconvenience to respondent No.2 and also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/-. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the petitioners were not diligent enough in filing the appeal in time and therefore, the State Commission was 4 AKS;,J & ETD,J W P No.19(163 of 2025 justified in dismissing the condone delay ,rpplication and rejecting the appeal. Therefore, there are no m,:rits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the vit:w that the State Commission ought to have condoned the delav in filing the appeal by imposing some rcasonable costs insteacl of dismissing the same. A pcrusar of the record criscloses thai the petitioners counsel was suffering with severe arthritis and was taking treatment an<l thcrefore, the petitioners could nrrt co^tact their counsel so as to prefer the appeal. The said reasonappears to be justified to cc'ndone the delay of 744 days in filing the subject appeal. There[ore, ends of justice would be met il the impttgned order, dated 17.04.2025, is set aside.

7. Accordingly, the order, dated 77.04.20i)5, passed in F.A.lA.No.2381 of 2024 in F.A.No.952 of 2024 by the .l,elangana state Consumr:r Disputes nedressal Commission, I{yderrabad, is ) AKS,J & E:fD,.J W.P No 19063 of 2025 set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission The State Commission shall condone the delay in filing the subject appeal payment of costs of Rs.10,000 /- by the petitioners to respondent No.2-complainant. On such payment, the State Commission shall hear the appeal on merits by giving opportunity to both the parties

8. With the above observations/directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. t ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J TIRUMALA DEVI EADA,I Date:04.07.2025. SRK/MD