logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 (Cons.) Case No.250 print Preview print Next print
Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No : Revision Petition No. 668 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
Parties : Kadari Bhasker Versus M/s. Shriram Housing Finance Ltd Rep By Its Authorised Pers
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: A. Subhashini, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1-R2, Shubham Dubey, Anupam Singh, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 04-08-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Consumer Protection Act 2019
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act
- Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

2. Catch Words:
- Limitation
- Delay
- Pecuniary jurisdiction
- Revision Petition
- Second Appeal
- Consumer Protection
- Damages
- Insurance
- Housing loan
- Negligence

3. Summary:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint in 2019 against Shriram Life Insurance and Shriram Housing Finance for alleged deficiency in service and sought damages. The District Commission dismissed the complaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. An appeal filed after a 465‑day delay was dismissed by the State Commission, which also rejected the condonation of delay and found no merits. The complainant subsequently filed a second appeal, later converted to a revision petition, but failed to explain the extensive delays of 292 days in filing the revision. The court held that the revision petition was not maintainable under Section 58(1)(b) read with Section 21(b) and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and unexplained delay.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

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 advised the counsel to file a Second Appeal only in the second week of May 2025. We are unable to accept this contention which has no foundation. The counsel should have known the correct position of law which was already intimated in July 2025 that a Revision Petition would be maintainable. There is no explanation as to why this Revision Petition came to be filed on 02.06.2026 which is almost after 10 months. There is no explanation about this delay in the filing of the present Revision Petition.

Thus, on a perusal of the facts and the casual manner in which the litigation has been pursued by the complainant, we find no error in the impugned order of the State Commission dated 17.04.2025, much less any irregularity, and consequently there is no scope for exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act read with Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act. The delay in the filing of the Appeal before the State Commission also remains unexplained as no cause was shown before the State Commission for the delay of 465 days in the filing of the Appeal.

The delay in the filing of the present Revision Petition also has not been explained and therefore, in the absence of any material irregularity or illegality, the Revision Petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly consigned to records.
 
  CDJLawJournal