IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 34331 OF 2025 (GM-CON)

BETWEEN:

1. K BALAJI S/O LATE V KRISHNAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O #9/1, 1^ST 'D' MAIN ROAD

18^TH CROSS, B K NAGAR YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU-560022 …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH T S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

D igitally signed by VASANTHA 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER KUMARY B STATE BANK OF INDIA K RACPC, MALLESHWARAM Location:

HIGH NO.97, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD COURT OF KUMARAPARK WEST KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560020

2. CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER NO.112, J C ROAD, BENGALURU-560002 (IMPLEADED V/O DT. 10.02.2026)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C VINAY SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 PASSED BY THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW DELHI, IN REVISION PETITION NO.487/2025 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (for short 'the National Commission') in Revision Petition No.487/2025.

2. The aforesaid revision petition was preferred after a delay of 577 days. The National Commission found that the explanation offered by the petitioner for such a gross delay in filing the revision petition would not satisfy the test that the petitioner was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his case for as long as 577 days. The revision petition was, therefore, dismissed.

3. We have considered the submissions. The petitioner had availed educational loan from the State Bank of India. The petitioner had repaid the entire loan amount for which the Bank had issued No Due Certificate in his favour. The Government decided to give subsidy on the educational loan. Though the respondent-Bank has admitted the subsidy amount, however, the subsidy was never credited in the bank account of the petitioner. The admission of subsidy amount is of the year

2015.

4. The petitioner, therefore, filed a consumer complaint in CC No.1820/2019 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short 'the District Commission'), which came to be partly allowed vide order dated 21.11.2020. However, the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission'), vide order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Appeal No.341/2021, had set aside the order passed by the District Commission. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review in Review Application No.54/2023 seeking review of the order passed in Appeal No.341/2021. The said review application also came to be dismissed on 04.10.2024. Soon thereafter, the aforesaid Revision Petition No.487/2025 came to be filed before the National Commission in 2025. The National Commission has counted the delay from the date of the order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.341/2021 i.e., 28.03.2023, however, it has ignored the fact that the review application was filed seeking review of the order, which came to be dismissed on 04.10.2024 and therefore, there was sufficient explanation for not filing the revision petition on time.

5. We find the approach of the National Commission highly technical. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the National Commission inasmuch as the revision application has been dismissed only on the ground of delay. The matter is remitted back to the National Commission to decide the revision application on merit expeditiously and in accordance with law.

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending IAs, if any,