ORDER

CC/14/2019 was presented on 25.02.2019 by the petitioner/complainant before the DCDRC Nizamabad (for short the District Commission) praying for damages in respect of the services for which deficiency was alleged against M/s Shriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd. which was an insurance taken for a housing loan from M/s Shriram Housing Finance Ltd. The complaint came to be dismissed by the District Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction vide order dated 26.04.2003.

A highly belated appeal with a delay of 465 days was filed by the complainant before the SCDRC Telangana at Hyderabad (for short the State Commission) and the State Commission vide its order dated 17.04.2025 dismissed the delay condonation application as well as the appeal on the ground of delay of 465 days. Not only this, the State Commission also observed on merits as well. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Appellate order are extracted hereunder:

“06. POINT:- A keen perusal of the petition affidavit reveals that the delay of 465 days occurred because this Commission refused to receive the fresh complaint on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction is more than one crore as per the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The entire affidavit does not speak about the delay of 465 days in preferring the said appeal. To condone the delay application it is necessary that the petitioner evinces and is vocal about the reasons for this extensive delay. Merely laying the blame on the Commissions and stating that the office refused to receive this complaint is not acceptable and the petitioner has not been diligent about his duties.

7. A perusal of the complaint and impugned order reveals that the loan taken by the complainant and his wife is secured through insurance and it was repudiated by the opposite parties on the grounds that the policy was issued in the name of the complainant. Since the complainant was the financial applicant claiming damages towards negligence for the death of his wife and thereby seeking a direction against the opposite parties to waive the housing loan as well as finance loan was denied. There are no firm issues or reasons in the complaint to impose any liability on the opposite parties. In view of the aforesaid discussions we find no merits in the complaint.”

The present compilation was presented by the complainant as a Second Appeal against the order impugned dated 17.04.2025. According to the complainant, the Second Appeal was preferred vide a diary number on 16.06.2025. The counsel for the complainant is stated to have shifted her office from New Delhi to Ghaziabad and it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that the files got mixed up. We may point out that there is a delay of 292 days in the filing of the present Revision Petition. Learned counsel urged that the matter had been filed as a Second Appeal way back on 16.06.2025 whereas the present Revision Petition is stated to have been instituted on 02.06.2026.

Learned counsel submits that in July 2025 she received an intimation that the Second Appeal had been erroneously filed instead of a Revision Petition. However, the same message indicated that it would be appropriate to file a Second Appeal which according to her is an incorrect suggestion. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel that there is an incorrect recital in the message given but partially, inasmuch as the intimation was correct that instead of a Second Appeal, a Revision Petition would be maintainable. The reason for this is that the complaint was instituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 1986 Act) on 25.02.2019 and therefore the procedure applicable would be the same and a Revision Petition shall be maintainable keeping in view the provisions of Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act read with Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short the 2019 Act). There is no explanation as to what happened thereafter except saying that the Registry had a