Petitioner sought quashing of the NCDRC's dismissal of his application for condonation of a 336-day delay in appealing against a State Consumer Commission dismissal. The High Court found the explanation unsatisfactory, held the NCDRC's decision not perverse, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
i
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR c
c
PRESENT
y/
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND
►.4-
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 29770 OF 2023
Between:
A Avadhanula Sridhar, S/o Rama Murthy, R/o Flat No. 401, Dronam Arcade Opp Sri Kanya Theatre, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam-530016
...Petitioner
AND
Chalamala Commercial Complex Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam 530014
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to a) Issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of CERTIORARI calling for records pertaining to the order dated 20-10-2023 in FA No 491 of 2022 on the file of the National
/
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at New Delhi b) Set aside and quash the order dated 20-10-2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at NewDelhi in FA No 491 of 2022 being illegal arbitrary unjust and against the statutory provisions of law and Act
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
if
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the orders passed dated 20-10-2023 in FA No 491 of 2022 by the Respondentno.1onthefile of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at New Delhi pending disposal of the writ petition and pass forthwith, until disposal of the above writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TURAGA MK PRANEETHA
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI J VENKATESWARA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M P KASHYAP
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI D RAVI KIRAN
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: None
The Court made the following: Order
*
APHC010572382023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-42 AT AMARAVATI [3446]
WRIT PETITION NO: 29770 of 2023
Avadhanula Sridhar ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Sales Manager and Others
...Respondent(s)
Turaga MK Praneetha, Advocate(s) for Petitioner(s) J Venkateswara Prasad, M P Kashyap, D Ravi Kiran, Advocate(s)for Respondent(s)
CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE ; 16*'^ April 2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ (Orah:
The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “NCDRC”), whereby the application seeking condonation of delay of 336 days in preferring the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. 2. It is not out of place here to mention that the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by virtue of its order dated 11.08.2021, had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. A review application is stated
Page 2 of 4 HCJ & RRR, J WP 29770_2023
to have been filed by the petitioner before the Statecommission,whichtoo came to be dismissed by the State Commission on the questionofjurisdiction. Having failed to get the appropriate relief in thereviewproceedings,the petitioner then preferred an appeal before the NCDRC along with an application seeking condonation of a delay of 336 days.
- The case of the appellant before the NCDRC was thatthetimespentby the appellant/petitioner herein pursuing a wrong remedyoughttohavebeen excluded for purposes of limitation. Reliance in thisregardwasplacedupona judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MP. SteelCorporation vs. Commissioner of Central Exercise’’. The second ground taken in the application seeking condonation of delay was that theappellant’smotherhad passed away on 12.06.2022, due to cancer, after havingbeenbedridden since 2014 and being the only son taking care of hismother,andtherefore, I the delay in those circumstances ought to be condoned.
1 had not 5. Counsel for the petitioner would urge that the NCDRC considered the application in the correct legal perspective.
Civil Appeal No.4367 of 2015, dated 23.04.2015
Page 3 of 4
HCJ & RRR, J WP 29770 2023
/
I-
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
- From the record, it appears that, although a reviewpetitionwasfiledby the petitioner herein before the State Commission seeking a review of the order of dismissal dated 11.08.2021, material particularsastothedatewhen the review petition was filed, etc., were conspicuouslymissing.Assumingthat the time spent between the filing of the review petition,whichcotrfdnothave been the appropriate remedy, and the date when thereviewpetitionfinally did not came to be dismissed was to be excluded, yet the application satisfactorily explain the delay between the date whenthereview petition came to be dismissed and the actual date of filing of the appeal before the NCDRC.
- Delay can be condoned only if the application gives a satisfactory explanation with regard to the circumstances in which the delay was occasioned. Condonation does not fall as a matter ofcourse,norcan it be taken for granted that delay ought to be condoned inanygivensituation.
- Considering the material which was placed on recordbythepetitionerin the application for condonation of delay, we are ofthe opinion that the dismissal of the application by the NCDRC cannot, baseduponsuchan explanation, be said to be perverse.
Page 4 of 4
HCJ & RRR, J WP_29770 2023
t
%
- We do not find any merit in the present petition, which is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall standclosed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT RE(^TRAR
SECTIO FFICER
%
HIGH COURT
DATED:16/04/2024
ORDER
WP.No.29770 of 2023
gfAHDHiq! 11, SEP m Current Section
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the NCDRC order dismissing the application for condonation of a 336-day delay in filing an appeal.
Whether time spent pursuing review before the State Commission and the petitioner's mother's illness satisfactorily explained the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.P. Steel Corporation v Commissioner of Central ExciseReferred
M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A Avadhanula Sridhar
The Sales Manager, M/s Olympus Motors Pvt. Ltd.
The Sales Manager, Audi Hyderabad, Olympus Motors (P) Ltd.
The Sales Manager, Audi India, Division of Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd.
The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank / HDFC General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dhiraj Singh Thakur
R Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
