1. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd v. The Telangana State Consumer Disputes - Redressal Commission

M/s. Sri Salasar Balaji AgroTech Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director Sri Dhiraj Khetan, S/o. Mahish Kumar Khetan, Age. 46 years, Occ. Business, Office at Khetan Tower. '1st Floor, Plot No. 1-8-303127 , P.G Road, Sindhi Colony, Secunderabad, Telangana State. [\//s. Koushik Road Carriers, Rep. by its authorized signatory, No.1 33, Sundaram Complex, 1st Floor, Near Tower Square, lndore, Madhya Pradesh - 452001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari declaring the order of the Respondent No.1 dated 21 .04.2025 in dismissing the condone delay petition filed in F.A.l.A.No.46 of 2025 in F.A.No.12 of 2025 for the deray of 142 days and not considerinq tire bonafide grounds sought by the Petitioner to condone the delay of 142 dais; as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutionar and against the provisions of the consumer I)rotection Act, 20.1g and Rures raid thereunder and consequenry arow the concr: ne deray petition in F.A.l.A.No 46 of ZOZS lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section r51 cpc praying that in the srcumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to Stay of a' further proceedings in pursuance of the order datecl 27 .06.2024 in c c No 6'r of 2022 0n the fire of the District consumer t) isputes Redressar Commission-ll, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt SRtN|VASA RAO PACHWA Counsel for the Respondent No..t & 2: Gp FOR CONSUMER D|SPUTES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR CIVIL SUppLIES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA W.P.NO.19621 0F 2o25 ORDER: per th-e Hon'ble Sri Justice Ablnnand Kumar Shau i) Aggrieved by the order, dated 21.04.2025 passed in FA.IA.No.46 of 2025 by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, .the State CommissionJ, the present Writ petition is hled.

2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao pachwa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that respondent No.4 has hled a consumer complain t uid e C.C.No.61 of 2022 against the petitioners under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Il, Hyderabad (for short, 'the District Commission) and the said complaint was pa.rtly allowed uide order, dated 27.06.2024, directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. I7,94,54A/- along with the 1 2 interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs ol Rs.. 0,000/- on the ground that there was dehciency in service o[ :tre petitioners.

4. Aggrieved by the order, dated 27.06.20'2.+ passed by the District Commission, the petitioners have prei:: red an appeal before the State Commission uide F.A.No.l2 ;f 2025 dong with an application i.e., FA.lA.No.46 of 2o2li, seeking to condone the delay of 142 days. Hower er', the State Commission has dismissed the condone delery application and consequently, rejected the appeal oniy on ..he ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel for thc pr titioners had further contended that the delay occurrecl rlue to some corrections made in drafting the appeal by .Lre petitioners' counsel, and as the counsel's computer has <:ollapsed, the draft could not be retrieved. Additionally, tl'.e concerned ofhcer of the petitioners was on leave, henr:e there was a delay of 142 days. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dalerl 27.O4.2O25 passed in FA.lA.No.46 of 2025 in F.A.No.12 cf 2025 by the State Commission and the matter be remitted back to the State Commission to hear the appeal o t-l merits, AS 3 admittedly, the petitioners have already deposited 5O7o of the amount before the State Commission as adjudicated by the District Commission.

5. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the view that the State Commission ought to have heard the appeal on merits I I instead of dismissing only on the ground of delay, as admittedly, the petitioners have given cogent reasons for condoning the delay of 142 days. Therefore, the order, dated

21.04.2025 passed in FA.lA.No.46 of 2025 in F.A.No.12 of 2025 by the State Commission is liable to. be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The delay of 742 days in liling the appeal can be condoned, subject to the condition of the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.2S,OOO / - to the Telangana State Leg.l Services Authority (TSLSA). The matter is remitted back to the State Commission to hear the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. 4

6. With the above observa_tions/ directions, t 1(: Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applicatio.e:, pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. U. SUDHA e$d'rs ANT REGISTRAR $ECTION OFFICER / To, 1 2 3 4 5 t) The Registrar, Telangana state consumer Dispute!. fleri re ssal commission, Hyderabad. The Registrar, District Consumer Disputes Redre:ssal Commission-ll, Hyderabad. The Principal Secretary, Department of civil supplies arrd consumer Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, Advocate f(-)PUCI Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the Stale of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES, High (:;ourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 7 BSR GJ HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 /i 23 ltP &l * Dt ORDER WP.No.19621 of 2025 DISPOS!NG OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1