##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:58464

APHC010471772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench

Sr.No:-23

AT AMARAVATI

[3552]

WRIT PETITION NO: 24319 of 2024

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 : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

DATE : 30^th 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 2&0 C25G:RAJP HC:58464

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 2&0 C25G:RAJP HC:58464

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 th