The court emphasized that in applications for condoning delay, sufficient cause must be clearly demonstrated; mere boilerplate explanations are insufficient.

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 1^st 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. Heard Mr.V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. 4^th 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 4^th 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, 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 hear