[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Tha. Tulsidas Ramjibhai vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd on 16 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11395/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11395 of 2025
==========================================================
THA. TULSIDAS RAMJIBHAI
Versus
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIKUNJ SAVALIYA(12918) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RATILAL V SAKARIA(6613) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 16/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is
impugning the order dated 17.12.2024, whereby the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi (National Commission for sake of brevity) has
dismissed the First Appeal on the ground of delay of 1886
days in filing the First Appeal.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State
Commission for sake of brevity) had passed an order
dismissing the complaint of the petitioner on 28.02.2018.
Thereafter, the petitioner could not prefer the First Appeal
before the National Commission within the period of
limitation i.e. 30 days, since the petitioner had undergone
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11395/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
Angioplasty and was under treatment for the same. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submits that in between due to
Corona Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
extended the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 to
28.02.2022. He submits that the petitioner should be
granted benefit for the same and in view thereof, instead of
1886 days, the delay as has occurred is only 1169 days.
2.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits
that by the impugned order, the National Commission has
recorded that no sufficient explanation has been given for
the delay of 1886 days in filing the First Appeal before it and
has thus rejected the delay condonation application and
accordingly the First Appeal. The explanation given by the
petitioner was that the petitioner had undergone
Angioplasty and therefore, he could not approach the
National Commission within time. Learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that National Commission ought to have
taken a lenient view.
3. In the considered the opinion of this Court, the said
reason is not sufficient enough to condone the delay of more
than 5 years. The impugned order is just and proper and no
interference is called for in the impugned order.
4. It is also pertinent to note that the present writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11395/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/02/2026
undefined
petition is filed on 21.07.2025 challenging the impugned
order of the National Commission dated 17.12.2024 i.e. after
seven months.
5. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
SALIM/
