lr//s HDFC Life lnsurance Company Limited v. The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

represente"d by its Registrar Eruvaka Building, Khairtabad, Hyderabad' Smt. Nelaveni Sunitha, W/o: Late Sri Nelavani Syam Mohan, aged about 38 veais. Occ: Housewife, R/o Flat No. 101' H.No.8-1-284l0ul142lB.S, Star Hill, bwaraka. O U Colony. Shaikpet, Hyderabad -500089. Punjab Natronal Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager, You.sufguda Branch' Hyd'erabad -500045. t 2 3 . ...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 in the nature of a certiorari. a.By catling for the records pertaining to FA lA NO. 510 of 2024 in FA NO. 195 of 2024 dated 03-10-2024 passed by the Hon',ble 1st respondent and set-aside the same b. consequently, allow the lA No. 51012024 by condoning the delay of 173 days and directing the 1st respondent to hear the appeal on merits. c.To setaside the consequential order dated 03-10-2024 passed in FA NO. 19512024 permitting the 2nd Respondent to withdraw the amount deposited to by the petitioner herein as a statutory deposit d.To award costs of the writ petition. to pass such other orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition urder Section 151 CPC praying that in the :)rrcumstanc;es stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rray be pleased to stay all further proceedings in. pursuance to the award/order dated '1 3-06-2023 passed in cc No. 100 oF 2022 belore the Hon'ble District consurner Disputes Redressal Commission-1, Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. P. RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K. MALLESH Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI MURALIDHAR PA'[NA|K K.V The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILT AND TTIE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.31516 OF 2024 ORDER: (l)cr Hon'ble Sri [Lrstice Abhirrarrcl Kuntal Shavili) When the matter is taken Lrp for hearing, learned courlsel for both the p;rrtie's hatve informecl the Court that the subject lratt('r of tl.r t: prescrrt \\'rit Petition is squarely covered bv the orrler, clatc-cl 01.07.2025, passed bv this Court in W.P.No.l9063 of 2025 arrd following thr' trforcsaid orclcr, the present Writ Petition also dcscl,es to bt tlisl-r<tsecl of

2. [n vien o[ thc sarne, this Court is of the considerec{ vie\v that tht: prt,sent \\'rit l)etition also cieserves to be disposed of in terrns of the orc{er, ciated 04.07.2025, passed by this Court in W P.No.19063 of 2025

3. Accorclinglv, thc prescnt \VriL Petition is disposed of in terms of the order, datecl 04.07.2025, passecl by this Court in W.P.No.19063 of 2025. Thc orrlcr, dated 03.10.2024, passed in Ir.r\.[,,\.No.510 of 202-[ in F.A.No.l95 of 2024 and the order, dated 0i\.10.2024, passed irr F.A.No.l95 of 2024, by rhe \ Telangana State Consumer Disputcs Reclrc;sal (-ommission, Hyderabac-i, are set aside ancl the ntattt:r is rcmanderl to the state Cornr-r'rission. The state cour..rissior.r :.hall r-onclone the delay. in filing thc subject ap'rpeal ot1 payrneni of costs of Rs.1 0,000,/- b), the petitior.rer to resl-ronrlent f,lo.2-complainant. On such paymcnt, the State Cc-rr.trrnissiorr shall hcar. the, appcal on rnerits by giving opportunit_v to Lroth thc partres. I herc: shall bc no order as to costs Misc,::llaneous Applications, ii anr., pr_.rrtlir.rr5 iu this Writ Petitiorr sl-r;rll stand closecl \sD/- M. NAGAM ANI STANT REGISTR AR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, '*".[:g::'3Jfi H,:3['.:il\i,1'?p]i:,iy"t"i:',gtlstateconsLmerDisputes , rhe Branch rvlanaser' Plij:iiilHtj;;i-e;nk vo"'tsJda Branch' ; Plt"i?'?llsliitlm *ru,:",I ,i"';t%'Jii3I.H31,,,"'" or re'|angana at :Hlt"3fii5?'flx*:.**1":iil",t:'^'o?l"'ieropu3r ; i;o cD !:oo19s-.. ^r ^ourt order dt 04/07 t2025 inw F' No' 19063 of 2025) (Along with ttre CoPY or uc TJ GJP N/ :\<')r 'l \., l'. t\ HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ---- ---_ - : y'.',,..1 'L sr4 t ,a' \" ORDER WP.No.31516 of 2024 1 6 SEP 2t125 \..: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 [, I $ ,/, 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 Abhirrancl Kumar Shavili) This Writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 71,.04.2025, passed in F.A.IA.N0.2387 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 rejected.

2. Heard Sri Rajan Sri Krishnan, learned counsel representing Sri T.P. Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri G. Nagaraju, rearnecr Assistant Government preader, 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.S26 of 2022, against the petitioners before 2 IKS.J & ETD.J Y. P No.19063 of 2025 the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Cornmission-Il, Hyderabad (for short, 'the District Commissiorr'), complaining that the petitioners have not honored the policv taken by the husband of respondent No.2 and that on t)re ground of deficiency of service, she was claiming col-npensation of Rs.49,94,09U- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum The District Commission oide order, dated 27.1)3.2024, was pleased to allow the said complaint. Aggrie,r'ed bv the same, a the petitione:rs have preferred the subject appeal before the State Commission along with the subject F.A.IA..seekirrg to condone the delay of 744 days in filing the appeal. The Statc Commission, oide irnpugned order, dated 11.04.2025, dismi.;scd 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 contendec'l that instead of dismissing the condone delay applir'rrtion, the State Commission ought to have imposed costs for concioning the delay and orlght to have heard the case on mcrits. The State J AKS,J & ETD,J W.P.No.l9063 of2025 Commission has mechanically dismissed the condone delay application. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 17.04.2025, and further, direct the State Commission to hear the appeal on merits.

5. Learned Assistant Government pleader appearing for respondent No.1 had contended tl-rat 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 Commission and the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of rRs.45,07,0g7/_ along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and further directed that the petitioners shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards 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 .\K:i.J n I.l1D.J \\:.I' N() 19C63 ol2025 justified 1n dismissing the condone delay application and rejecting the' appeal. Therefore, there are no merits in tl-re Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6 This Court, having considered the rival strbmisrlions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the vien' that the State Commission ought to have condoned the delav in fiting the appeal by inrposing some reasonable costs insteilcl of disrnissing the sarne. A perusal of the record discloses thart the pctitioners counsel was suffering with severe arthritis irnd rvas taking treatment and therefore, the petitioners could rrot contact their counsel so as to prefer the appeal. The said reasr)n appears to be justified to condone the delay of 1.44 days in filing the subject appeal. Therefore, ends of justice would be rnet ,f the impugned order, dated 77.O4.2025, is set aside.

7. Accordingly, the order, dated 11.04.21'25, passed 1n F.A.IA.No.2381 of 2024 in F.A.No.952 of 2024 bv the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissiorr, Hyde'rabad, is r 5 AKS,J & ETD,J rV.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 on 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. ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, I TIRUMALA DEVI EADA,I Date:04.07.2025. SRK/MD