IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Term “sufficient cause” u/Section 5 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed promote substantial justice, when delays are not due to dilatory tactics, bad faith, deliberate inaction, or negligence by appellant.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under Section 58(1)(B) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the orders dated 08.04.2024 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in F.A.I.A. No. 2130 of 2023 in FA No.831/2023 and in FA/831/2023 in which order dated 23.02.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No.323/2020 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP/Insurance Company was Appellant before the State Commission and OP before the District Commission and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission.

3. Notice was not yet issued, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Caveator appeared on the first date of hearing i.e. on 18.06.2024. Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that they having filed the caveat, takes notice of the case and are ready to finally argue the case. Petitioner’s Counsel also stated that they are ready to finally argue the case. Hence, Revision Petition was admitted and heard finally on 18.06.2024 itself.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent herein vide its order dated 23.02.2023. Against the said order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed writ Petition No. 14938/2023 on the ground that there was no pecuniary jurisdiction for the District Commission to entertain the complaint. Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 20.09.2023 dismissed the Writ Petition with a direction to avail the alternate remedy.

5. Hence, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The Appeal was filed with a delay of 193 days. The State Commission vide order dated 08.04.2024 dismissed the appeal with the following observations:

“7. Point:- After a careful perusal of the petition affidavit and counter, we are forced to observe that in the presence of statutory appeal to the State Commission under Section-41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Petitioner/Opposite Party ought not to have expended considerable time in challenging the order of the District Commission by filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court on the same grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction which was already answered by the Commission below.

8. We find that when the statutory remedy is available, the Writ Petition is filed only to circumvent the procedures prescribed and deposits to be made to admit an appeal. The Petitioner/Opposite Party being an insurance company having been involved in numerous consumer cases cannot claim ignorance of knowing the rule procedure and especially when IA No.99/2021 was filed before the District Commission regarding pecuniary jurisdiction.

9. Therefore, we find the reasons submitted are devoid of merits and there is no substantial material to condone the delay.

10. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected.”

6. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 08.04.2024 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

i. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.The State Commission, while rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay of 193 days, has wrongly held that the petitioner ought not to have expended considerable time in challenging the order of the District Commission by filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court on the same grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction which was already answered by the Commission below.

ii. The allegations in respect to avoiding the statutory deposit is completely baseless and unwarranted. The State Commission has not appreciated t