Anumula l\4ohan v. 1. National Consumer Dlsputes Redressal Commission' UpbhoktaNyayBhawan

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Counsel for the Respondents : - The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION NO.19570 OF 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon'btc Sri Justice Abhinand ktnar Shauili) When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner had informed the Court that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated LO.O4.2O25, passed by this Court in W.P.No.2678 of 2025 and by following the aforesaid order, the present Writ Petition also deserves to be disposed of. In view of the said submissions, this Court is of the 2. considered view that the present Writ Petition also I I deserves to be disposed of following the aforesaid order, dated 10.04.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.No.2678 of

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of following the aforesaid order, dated 10.04.2025, passed by this 2 I'.:. ..1. -':i Court in W.P.No.267B of 2025. It is made clear that the the impugned order, dated 05.03.2025, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in disallowing the condone delay application and in dismissing Revision Petition No.348 of 2025, is set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The National Commission shal1 hear the Revision Petition on merits. There shail be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To

1.7 Hvderabad. lsslon, he National Consumer DisP utes Redressal Co ice ComPlex, INA' New Up bhoktaNYaYBhawan,'F' B lock, General Pool Delhi - '1 10023. 2. The Manager, A.leet Seeds Ltd, ReP resented bY its trlanaging Director, Gut No. 233, Chitega on, Aurangabad - 431 105, ItIah arashtra State, Customer Care Centre. Through its Authorized Signatory M. lnidrasena ReddY, S/o Bhagawantha ReddY, Regional Manager, Aieet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Fl/o - 3. The lvlaheshwara Agencies Pesticides and Seeds' Pallarguda Village' " d The Proorietor, saras*aYhi'igi; ig"""1"t' Seeds and Pesticides Beside 5. Th-e Proprietor, M/s. v"J'i i"[ii"L''i Depot Station Road' Warangal District' 6 The Manaqer, Seed w"i?l'i"i"i"'tionir F't Ltd' 437 Avenue - 4' Baniara ? or.i;' iil;'s nii,rp,HnoEil nNYARAt\ilB HArLA' Advocate IoPUCI u Hills. Hvdelabad - 5000'r'1 Iffir"Pf,T'ilopv ot the order, dated 1014t2o25' passed bv this court in ilvi-.rl6.zoza ot zb2s to this order) Sangem Mandal, Waranoal District Javasri talkies, Narsampet Warangat ulstrlct .. SA GJ f 't t 1a u- .,4b F\"\ ,la , .-':- s: t') a'. \(.( > z a \ .-) ) -i,, 10 SEP 206 '\.r r\\ t :; p,,.. Ic\r?- L) -...._-_:::=> HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 ORDER WP.No.19570 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I i I I )2 a , THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.2678 OF 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinarld Kumar Shavili)l This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... to issue a writ order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Revision Petition Nos.2534 to 2598 / 2024 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and set-aside the impugned order dt.14.10.2024 passed in Revision petition Nos.2534 to 2598 /2024 on the file the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Con-rmission, New Delhi and pass such other orders ..."

2. Heard Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2. J Vide impugned order, dated 14.10.2024, tlre applications filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petitions were disallowed and consequently, the Revision petition Nos.2534 to 2598 of 2024 were dismissed, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for shorf ,,the National Commission"). 2 AKS,J & ETD,J w.P.No 2678 of 2025 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are all small time farmers and they have purchased cotton seeds from respondent No.2 through respondent No.3 How'ever, the cotton seeds purchased from respondent No.2 were of defective quality and consequently, the petitioners have suffered huge loss. Aggrieved bv the supply of defective seeds by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioners have approached the District Consumer Forum, Warangal (for short, 'the District Forum') and filed complaints zrlde C.C.No.238 of 2011 ancl batch and thc District Forum was pleased to allow the complaints preferred by the petitioners t,ide orders, dated 08.02.2018, and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deposit before the District Forum a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards crop loss with interest @ 7.5% Per annum from the date of filing of the complaints till the clate of realisation and to pay Rs.20,000/- per acre towards the expendlture incurred bv the petitioners and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs. 5 Aggrieved by the said orders, dated 08.02.2018, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed F.A.No.261, of 2018 and batch before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 3 AKS,J & ETD,J W.P.No.267a of 2025 Hyderabad (for short, 'the State Commission') and the State Commission was pleased to allow the appeals oide order, dated

20.10.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached i the National Commission by filing Revision Petition Nos.2534 to 2598 of 2024 along with applications seeking to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petitions. The National Comn'rission, oide impugned order, dated 14.10.2024, was pleased to disallow the condone delay applications and consequently, dismissed the Revision Petitions, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that the petitioners were diligent enough in filing the cases before the National Comrnission. Learned counsel further contended that, initially, the petitioners have entrusted the cases to one Counsel at New Delhi, but he had to move to Kerala due to medical emergency, as his mother was hospitalised during March, 2023. After returnipg to New Delhi, the said Counsel has shifted his office and there was change in the address of the Counsel at New Delhi. Therefore, there was some miscommunication between the Counsel appearing for 4 AKS,J & ETD,J w P.No.2678 of 2025 ;*.& the petitioners before the National Commission and the petitioners and as such, delay has occurred in filing the Revision Petitions Therefore, the petitioners have filed applications seeking to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petitions. I.earned counsel had further contended that the National Commission ought to have heard the cases on merits instead of dismissing the condone delay applications and the Revision Petitions. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting asidc the impugned order, dated 14.1,0.2024, and further, direct the National Commission to hear the Revision Petitions on merits.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 had contended that no details were furnished by the petitioners to condone the delay. The details of the Counsel engaged by the petitioners rvere aiso not furnished. Therefore, the National Commission was justified 1n dismissing the condone delay applications and the Revision Petitions preferred by the petitioners. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed ,/ 5 AKS,J & ETD,J W.P.No.2678 of 2O25

8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the petitioners all small time farmers and they were diligent enough ln approaching their Counsel to prefer revision before the National Commission. However, the Counsel engaged by the petitioners at New Delhi had to move to Kerala due to medical emergency of his mother and even after returning to New Delhi, the Counsel has shifted his office. Therefore, there was some miscommunication between the petitioners and their Counsel. Therefore, the National Commission ought to have decided the cases on merits instead of disallowing the condone delay applications preferred by the petitioners.

9. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the impugned order, dated 74.1.0.2024, passed by the National Commission in disallowing the condone delay applications and in dismissing Revision Petition Nos.2534 to 2598 of 2024, is set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The National Commission shall hear the Revision Petitions on merits j I : 6 AKS,J & ETD,J ur P No.2678 oi 2025

10. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pencling in this Writ Pctition, shall stand closed ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J TIRUMALA DEVI EADA. J Date: 10.04.2025 MD I I I I I I I ! I i I t I I I I I i I I I I , ; I I