1 CGHC010366492026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1246 of 2026 1 - Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Limited Through Its Manager Regional Office Peninsula Business Park Tower-A, 15th Floor, J.K. Marg, Tower, Lower Parel Road Mumbai, Maharashtra 2 - Tata A I G General Insurance Co. Limited Through Its Manager, Regional Office 106, 107, 1st Floor, Walfort Zone, Old Building Bilaspur Road, Fafadeh Chowk, P.O., P.S. And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Aayaturam Markam S/o Late Paykum Markam R/o Gram Dudhiras Patel Para, Kothari Godripara, P.S. Gadiras, District South-Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh 2 - Virendra Markam S/o Aayaturam Markam R/o Gram Dudhiras Patel Para, Kothari Godripara, P.S. Gadiras, District South-Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.28 12:08:55 +0530 2 New Delhi, in Second Appeal No. 518/2025, whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the subject vehicle, motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 18P 6472, was registered in the name of Sahdev Markam. The said vehicle was insured under the head of “Compulsory PA Cover Owner Driver” by the insurance policy No. 3193100197/000000/00, which was valid from 15.01.2021 to 14.01.2026. The owner of the said vehicle, Sahdev Markam, met with an accident on 24.02.2021 and died. Thereafter, the respondents initiated claim proceedings. The claim application filed by the petitioner was repudiated by the insurance company, and thereafter, a complaint was filed by the respondents under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bastar Place, Jagdalpur. The Complaint Case was registered as Case No. CC/22/76 and, after hearing the parties, was partly allowed and an order for payment of the amount was passed by the District Commission vide order dated 28.03.2024. The said order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the District Commission was challenged by the petitioners/insurance company before the said State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, in First Appeal No. 24/529 of 2024. The said First Appeal filed by the petitioners/insurance company was dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 03.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a second appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Second Appeal No. 518/2025, which was also dismissed on the ground of delay, as the second appeal was barred by limitation by 254 days. 3 Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner insurance company. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the insurance policy issued by the petitioner was subject to certain conditions and the claimants have to satisfy the said conditions, whereas the deceased was not having a valid licence in his possession at the time of driving the motorcycle. Therefore, his claim filed by the complainants was rejected. Without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondents and ordered for payment of the amount under the insurance policy of the said motorcycle. The challenge before the State Commission was dismissed on the ground of delay and the National Commission also dismissed the second appeal on the ground of delay. The petitioner has duly explained the delay in filing the appeal and, being beneficial legislation, the delay occurred in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned, as the petitioner is required to complete various departmental processes to obtain sanction for filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay contains sufficient reasons. The learned State Commission as well as the National Commission should have taken a liberal approach and condoned the delay. The delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and unintentional. He would further submit that the first appeal cannot be dismissed on such a technical ground of condonation of delay. The National Commission has also not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He would further submit that Section 51(1) of the Act of 2019 empowers the National Commission to entertain an appeal after the prescribed period upon showing a sufficient reason for 4 the delay. However, they too have failed to exercise their jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The National Commission should have adopted a liberal approach towards the delay without going into the merits of the case. The application for condonation of delay has been rejected and the appeal has also been dismissed. The substantive right of the petitioner is affected and, therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and the matter may be remitted back to the learned National Commission for decision of the second appeal on the merits of the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material with the petition. 5. Present is a writ petition challenging the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, whereby the second appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, and the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the State Consumer Forum has been affirmed. The order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the State Consumer Commission is the order by which the first appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.03.2024 has been dismissed on the ground of delay after rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed the order on 28.03.2024, which was challenged by the petitioner before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which was delayed by 132 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner explained the reason for the delay that, in the process of obtaining a sanction for filing the appeal and to take legal advice, the delay of 132 days occurred, which is of a procedural nature. Before the learned State Consumer Commission, the petitioner filed its first 5 appeal, which was delayed by 132 days, and the State Consumer Commission rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay for want of satisfactorily explaining the delay by showing reasonable cause, and consequently, the first appeal was also dismissed on the ground of delay. Further, the petitioner had not approached the learned National Consumer Commission against the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the State Consumer Commission within time, and the second appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned National Consumer Commission was barred by 254 days, as the order passed by the State Consumer Commission was dated 03.10.2024, whereas the second appeal was filed before the National Consumer Commission on 14.07.2025. The learned National Consumer Commission, after considering the judgments of Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through Legal Representative and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr., (2023) 10 SCC 531, Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 10 SCC 765, and Bappanand Narshimman Annu Vs. Hirmanidevi G.S. Gupta & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2605, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not duly explained the cause of delay and rejected the application, and, as a corollary consequence, the second appeal was also dismissed vide its order dated 12.08.2025. Another aspect of the matter is that, after dismissal of the second appeal on 12.08.2025, the present writ petition has been filed after more than a year, and there is no sufficient explanation from the petitioner for the delay caused in filing the second appeal as well as the present writ petition. 6 6. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited in nature and is to be exercised sparingly only in cases of patent perversity, gross jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or failure of justice. The power under Article 227 does not confer upon this Court the status of an appellate forum to re-appreciate facts or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. In matters relating to condonation of delay and limitation, the discretion exercised by the courts/forums below, upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the party, ordinarily does not warrant interference unless such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in disregard of settled legal principles. In the present case, both the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in availing the appellate remedy. The explanation furnished by the petitioner, namely, procedural delay in obtaining sanction and legal opinion, has been duly considered and rejected by both the forums by assigning cogent reasons and by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the law of limitation and condonation of delay. 7. In the case of “Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel” 2022 (4) SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first 7 appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed: (SCC pp. 101 102, para 6) "6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to." 8. This Court, upon perusal of the orders impugned and the material available on record, is also in agreement with the findings recorded by the two forums below. No jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, perversity, or manifest injustice is demonstrated by the petitioner so as 8 to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The concurrent findings with regard to limitation are based upon proper appreciation of the facts and settled principles of law, and the petitioner has failed to establish that the approach adopted by the forums below suffers from any illegality warranting interference. Merely because the petitioner seeks adjudication of the appeal on merits would not be a ground to dilute the statutory mandate relating to limitation, particularly when the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 9. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, affirming the order passed by the learned State Commission. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok