APHC010471772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24319 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-23 [3552] D. Venkata Lakshmi Arrabolu and others ...Petitioners Vs. The Manager Sahara India and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. P. Rajasekhar appearing vice Mr. Kuntamukkala Sai Sree Sanjay Advocate for Respondents: - CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 30th December, 2025. P C : The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dated 12.09.2024. 2. The genesis of the issue arises in a complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum at Visakhapatnam filed by the petitioners herein against the Manager of Sahara India in which it was claimed that the deceased husband of complainant Smt. D. Venkata Lakshmi Arrabolu, during his lifetime had purchased Plan-H bonds/fixed deposits on 19.02.2013 vide two Certificates bearing No.562 011619431 and 071 045043286 for an amount of Rs.60,000/- 2 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24319_2024 each. The maturity date of the two bonds/fixed deposits were 19.02.2019 with a maturity value of Rs.1,41,000/- each. 3. The claim was that despite repeated requests, payment had not been made to honour the amount which was otherwise promised at the time of maturity. 4. The complaint came to be allowed by virtue of order dated 08.05.2019 by the District Consumer Forum. An amount of Rs.2,82,000/- was directed to be paid in favor of the complainants/petitioners herein along with interest calculated at 9% per annum from 25.10.2018 till realization, along with the compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.2,500/-. 5. The order passed by the District Consumer Forum came to be challenged before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the Manager, Sahara India, which however was dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2023, on the ground of limitation inasmuch as it was held by the Commission that the Manager, Sahara India had failed to justify the abnormal delay of 1267 days in preferring the appeal. 6. This order of the State Consumer Commission was further challenged before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by respondent No.1. 7. By virtue of order dated 12.09.2024, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while upholding the order passed by the State 3 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24319_2024 Consumer Commission, in regard to the issue of condonation of delay, which it held was just fair and proper, nevertheless remitted the matter yet again to the District Forum for considering the issue with respect to the amount of refund that was admissible to the complainant in question. For facility of reference, order impugned passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is reproduced hereunder: “Learned counsel admits that there has been delay and, however, substantial portion of which includes Covid Pandemic and nationwide lockdown period which is not considered by the learned State Commission. He also painstakingly argued that the matter essentially pertains payment of Rs.60,000/- towards the certificate of deposit made by the complainant wherein the learned District Forum misread the records and granted double benefit with respect to deposit of Rs.60,000/- as well as receipt for Rs.60,000/- acknowledging the same as if it is the second deposit, which is incorrect. He also states that there was no scope to review the order of the learned District Forum on account of absence of any provision under the Act, 1986. At the outset, with due regard to substantial delay in filing the Appeal, we consider the order of learned State Commission as regards disallowing condonation of delay, as just fair and proper. However, considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel and perusal of records, the matter is remitted to learned District Forum to consider the limited issue with respect to the amount of refund that is admissible to the complainant in question and pass appropriate order as deemed necessary.” 4 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24319_2024 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Rajasekhar, would submit that the judgment and order impugned passed by the National Consumer Commission is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the Commission, once having upheld the order of the State Consumer Redressal Commission on the ground of limitation, ought not to have remitted the matter for consideration yet again to the District Forum for consideration as to what was the amount of refund that was admissible and payable to the petitioners/complainant. It was also stated that there is no power of review with the District Consumer Forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the order impugned passed by the National Consumer Redressal Commission. 10. In our opinion, the Commission was not legally justified in remitting the matter back, inasmuch as having held that the order of dismissal of the appeal by the State Consumer Commission was not only justified in law but was also fair and proper, there was no reason or legal justification for the National Consumer Commission to remit the matter back to the District Forum for consideration yet again. 11. The order of the National Commission does not in the least suggest that the amount that was worked out by the District Consumer Forum, was in any manner legally unjustified or that the procedure adopted for arriving at the 5 HCJ & CGRJ WP_24319_2024 figure which the petitioners were held entitled to, was arrived at by adopting a procedure or methodology, which otherwise suffered from any error. 12. We find that the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is legally unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN