APHC010197862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 15252 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-37 [3552] PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited and another ...Petitioner(s) Vs. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission At Delhi and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. V R REDDY KOVVURI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. P RAJASEKHAR, *** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 4th November 2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Revision Petition Nos.RP/28/2024 and RP/29/2024 passed by the 1st Respondent i.e., National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi, and to quash the order, dated 14.02.2025, passed in Revision Petition Nos.RP/28/2024 and RP/29/2024, pertaining to Decree and Judgment, dated 12.08.2022 passed in C.C. No.124 of 2015 on the file of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission II Visakhapatnam and order, dated 01.08.2023 passed by Learned Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A.I. A.No 289 of 2023 in F.A. No.139 of 2023 and thereby set aside the Decree and Judgment dt 12.08.2022 passed in C.C. No.124 of 2015 on the file of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission II Visakhapatnam and order dated 01.08.2023 passed by Learned Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F. A. I. A. No. 289 of 2023 in F. A. No.139 of 2023 by allowing the Writ Petition and to pass…..” 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.15252 of 2025 2. Heard Mr.V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. 4th respondent’s husband purchased policy bearing Nos.21329031 and 21329154 on 10.06.2014 and 24.06.2014, for life insurance coverage (under Met Family Endowments Plan) for assured sum of Rs.2,77,070/- and Rs.9,10,000/- respectively. The 4th respondent herein, being wife, was appointed as nominee. She on 28.07.2014 stated to have informed the petitioners of the death of her husband on 10.07.2014, and accordingly submitted death claim statement with supporting documents. The claim came to be rejected for the reason that the insured had suppressed his past medical ailment, in particular, that of suffering from tuberculosis, hence, the claim came to be repudiated by letter, dated 02.08.2014. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred Consumer Complaint vide C.C.No.124 of 2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Visakhapatnam (for short, “the District Forum”). The learned District Forum, by its judgment and order, dated 03.12.2016, rejected the same by holding that complex issues of the nature canvassed could not be decided before it, rather the petitioner therein approach appropriate Civil Court. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred Appeal vide First Appeal No.142 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.15252 of 2025 Vijayawada (for short, “the State Commission”). Learned State Commission, by order, dated 14.08.2019, remanded the complaint for fresh adjudication before the District Forum. Upon remand, the District Forum, by its judgment and order, dated 12.08.2022, allowed the complaint and directed the Insurer to pay a sum of Rs.11,87,070/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.15,000/- towards costs, within 45 days from the date of order. The said order stated to have been received by the petitioners herein on 18.08.2022. Eventually, steps were taken to file Appeal before the State Commission by way of First Appeal No.139 of 2023 along with an application therein F.A.I.A.No.289 of 2023 seeking to condone delay of 167 days in filing the Appeal, besides, stay application. The State Commission, initially, granted stay of impugned judgment subject to deposit of entire award amount and accordingly, petitioners had deposited an amount of Rs.18,35,156/-. However, later, as the delay application came to be opposed, after hearing both counsels, ultimately, the State Commission has dismissed F.A.I.A.No.289 of 2023, by holding that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay and accordingly, even Appeal also came to be dismissed, by order, dated 01.08.2023. Writ petitioners preferred revision petitions i.e., Revision Petition No.28 of 2024 and Revision Petition No.29 of 2024 before the 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.15252 of 2025 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission”), challenging the aforesaid orders of the State Commission. By impugned order, dated 14.02.2025, both these applications came to be rejected. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners vehemently contended that both the State Commission as well as the National Commission have committed error in not appreciating the grounds raised in support of application filed for seeking condonation of delay, despite demonstrating sufficient cause, in proper perspective, and following well enunciated principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in dealing with applications for condonation of delay. In support of the same, reliance has been placed on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh1. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported both the orders of State Commission as well as National Commission, by contending that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Commissions, since clearly held that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay, do not warrant interference. He also submitted that on plain reading of the reasons pleaded in the application filed in F.A.I.A.No.289 of 2023, since on face of it, do not really establish 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 600 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.15252 of 2025 even sufficient cause for exercising the discretion to condone the delay, this Court, in exercise of judicial review, could not substitute its view and upset the findings of both the Forums. 6. Perused the record and considered rival submissions of both the learned counsels. 7. In order to test as to whether the orders passed by the State Commission as confirmed by the National Commission, rejecting the application for condonation of delay were justified, it has to be seen whether petitioners have sufficiently pleaded and demonstrated sufficient cause to condone the delay. Paras.3 and 4 of the affidavit, which explained the reasons, read as follows: “3. I further submit that we came to know that the District Consumer Commission has passed an order on 12.08.2022, against our company, and then we instructed our counsel to obtain the copy of order from the commission. Our counsel obtained the order copy and forwarded to us and we in turn sent the same to our office at Mumbai for necessary action. 4. I further submit that our Head Office, after receipt of the file referred it to their panel Advocate for opinion and after receiving the opinion copy forwarded the file to us for preferring an appeal. We entrusted the matter to a legal firm at Delhi for preferring an appeal. It is learnt that they, in turn, appointed a local counsel for filing an appeal. Later, noticing delay in the matter we took the matter back from earlier counsel and entrusted to the present local counsel. As per his instructions, we instructed our accounts department for preparation of DD for statutory deposit. Due to the aforesaid bonafide reasons of administrative approvals and change of counsel, we could not prefer appeal within time as such there was a delay of _ days in preferring appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton. I further submit that we have fair chance of success in the appeal and if the delay is not condoned, our company would be put to serious loss.” 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.15252 of 2025 8. Learned State Commission considering the aforesaid reasons has come to conclusion that the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. conspicuously were silent regarding the date on which the certified copy of the order was received, the advocate, who issued opinion and reasons why the record was sent to legal firm at Delhi, as the Appeal against the order of District Forum was required to be preferred at State Commission at Vijayawada. In the absence of proper explanation offered connecting the chain of events, which stated to have resulted in the delay, the State Commission has come to conclusion that sufficient cause was not demonstrated to condone the delay. The aforesaid findings came to be confirmed by the National Commission. Since the State Commission was exercising the discretionary powers to consider the application for delay, and as the reasons assigned by the State Commission were not perverse nor the order suffered from any illegality, it refrained from interfering with the same. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court, recently in Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector2 summarised the principles governing the law in regard to condoning delay. 10. The parameters for consideration of applications for condoning delay are well settled and need no reiteration. (Refer: State of Madhya 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.15252 of 2025 Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary3 and Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran4). When there is negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides attributable to the party seeking condonation of delay, the Forum, exercising discretionary power to condone the delay, cannot take a liberal view. We are completely in agreement with the reasons assigned by the State Commission as well as the National Commission, who held that the reasons pleaded by petitioners in F.A.I.A.No.289 of 2023 really do not satisfy the requirements of sufficient cause for exercising discretionary power of condoning the delay. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1093