MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the reasons cited in the Affidavit, the delay of 81 and 63 days in filing these Revision Petitions No. 3467 and 3468 of 2017, respectively is hereby condoned. 2. Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the common order dated 28.04.2017 in FAIA No. 367 of 2017 in FASR No. 1070 of 2017 and FAIA No. 369 of 2017 in FASR No. 1068 of 2017, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderababd (for short “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals on the ground of limitation against the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (for short “the District Forum”). The District Forum has partly allowed the Complaint directing the third and fourth Opposite Parties jointly and severally to refund ₹2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization and dismissed the Complaint against the second and third Opposite Parties. 3. For the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 3466 of 2017 is being taken as the lead case and both these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 4. The facts in brief, are that the Complainant had taken an Insurance Policy bearing No. U16643888 for annual premium of ₹50,000/- with risk cover for 10 years and the premium was payable only for a period of 3 years. It was informed to the Complainant that the basic sum of Insurance is 12 times the premium i.e. an amount of ₹6,00,000/- with a rider clause of double benefit in case of unnatural death and severe illness. The Policy was acknowledged and given their approval vide letter dated 14.05.2010. It is averred that the Opposite Parties have refused to issue a receipt of the 3rd premium cheque sent to their Head Office by Regd. Post. The Complainant submitted that as per the agreed terms ₹2,59,830/- was payable by the Opposite Parties by 06.05.2013 along with interest @17.75% amounting to ₹46,120/-. Thereafter, a further amount of ₹50,000/- was paid by the Complainant as the fourth premium the fresh new simultaneous policy should be treated as fresh and the original terms and the amount should be calculated for treating this as the second fresh policy. But the Opposite Parties failed to issue the fresh policy and also failed to pay the amount and hence he filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs: “a) To direct the opposite parties to pay the balance claim amount of Rs.3,05,950/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of it fell due that is from 15.06.2013 to the date of realization. b) To declare to direct and uphold the award to keep the life policy in force on same terms for the rest of 7 years. c) To award the future interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint to the date of final payment is made to the complainant by the opposite party. d) To award the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to negligent and indifferent attitude of the opposite party towards him. e) To pass an award to enforce as separate life policy similar to this policy for the same amount, terms with since the acceptance of another premium of Rs.50,000/- f) To award the cost of this Complaint of Rs.10,000/- g) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. ” 5. The Insurance Company filed their Written Version stating that the life assured had admitted to the issuance of the Policy in May, 2010, payment of five annual premiums of ₹50,000/- totaling to ₹2,50,000/-. It is averred that the Complainant purchased the Insurance Policy for gain and as the Complainant invested in the Insurance Policy for receiving higher amounts than what he has paid by way of premium, therefore, the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’. It is denied that the Complainant is liable to pay premium for only three years and as per the Policy, premium has to be paid for five years and life is covered. The term of the Policy is for 31 years and the policy is in force. All the other allegations made in the Complaint were denied and it was stated that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf and sought dismissal of the Complaint against them. 6. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaints in part directing the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 4 jointly and severally to refund an amount of ₹2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission in FAIA NO. 369 of 2017 in FASR No. 1068 of 2017 dismissed the Appeal in limine on the ground of delay. While dismissing so, the State Commission observed as follows: “13) The parties seeking relief have to satisfy the court that he/she has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the time prescribed and the explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant cannot be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse to time. Proof of ‘sufficient cause’ is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. The discretion conferred on this Commission is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal that would not be a ground for condoning the delay. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal of consumer disputes. It follows that the delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and ‘sufficient cause’ should be made out with specific reasons supported by material; and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the prescribed period will not be exercised in a light and routine manner. 14. We may also state that the petitioner should not be denied the right accrued to him on expiry of limitation provided for to prefer an appeal. What is required is that the explanation has to be reasonable, plausible and believable. Mere explanation without supporting material is not sufficient for condoning the delay in favour of applicant. If he does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that it does not reflect ‘sufficient cause’, then the application deserves no consideration. When consistently rigmarole facts pleaded without any justification or proof, the delay of 94 days cannot be condoned.” 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/ Complainant vehemently contended that the Complaint was allowed before the District Forum and on an Appeal preferred by the Complainant, the State Commission has erred in dismissing the Appeal at the admission stage on the ground of delay. Learned Counsel submitted that the free copy of the final order dated 15.12.2016 was issued on 28.12.2016 as evident from the endorsement made on this effect in the said judgement and final order. However, due to ill health the Complainant was unable to approach counsel to file First Appeal within the period of limitation. 9. The State Commission has given a finding in para 5 and 6 of the order, which is reproduced as hereunder: “5) In the instant appeal, the Forum below passed order on 15.12.2016 in C.C. No. 832 of 2013 and 833 of 2013 and the same was dispatched to either of the parties on 28.12.2016.2016 vide dispatch No. 1027 and 1028. From the perusal of operative portion of the order of forum below which are impugned under this appeal, it is evident that the time granted for compliance is 45 days. 6) Admittedly, the present applications along with the appeals are filed on 20.03.2017. If really the Petitioner is interested in pursuing the matter, nothing prevented him from filing the appeal within 45 days. No plausible reasons assigned as to what made the Petitioner keep silent for such a long time. This shows the negligence and callousness on the part of the Petitioner in showing disrespect to the orders of the court.” 10. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 to take a liberal stand while condoning the delay; having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and Principle of Natural Justice, coupled with the fact that the Appeal was preferred by the Complainant seeking enhancement, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay, allow the present Revision Petitions and set aside the order of the State Commission, which has dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Complainant in limine. The State Commission is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as practicable on merits after issuing notice to the other side. It is clarified that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the case. 11. In the result, both these Revision Petitions are disposed of with the aforenoted directions. | 
