NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/56/2026 (Against the Order dated 7th August 2025 in Appeal No. SC/9/FA/1054/2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/13920/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)

NC/IA/13919/2025 (INTERIM RELIEF)

NC/IA/13921/2025 (EXEMPTION FOR FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION)

TATA MOTORS LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - 24 BOMBAY HOUSE HOMI MODY STREET MUMBAI

400001MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus VIJAY KUMAR MUDGAL PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O SURENDRA DEV SHARMA R/O A 16C MANSAROVAR COLONYRAMGHAT ROAD ALIGARH , ALIGARH,UTTAR PRADESH.

MS MASCOT MOTORS PVT LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - MASCOT ESTATE 5TH KM STONE DELHI GT ROAD ALIGARH , ALIGARH,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MR. RAJAT KUMAR, DR. ANAGH MISHRA, ADVOCATES DATED: 13/03/2026

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Rajat Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. This Revision Petition was entertained on 09.12.2025 and the following Order was passed:

“ Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the present Revision Petition would be maintainable against an interim order passed in a pending Appeal before the State Commission and for that reliance has been placed on a couple of orders passed by us in Diary No. 12 of 2025 and 138 of 2025 dated 22.09.2025 and 13.10.2025 respectively. We therefore provisionally admit the Revision Petition subject to any objection by the other side.

The contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the State Commission while directing the deposit of the entire decretal amount has not recorded any specific or special reasons as enunciated and held by the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited Versus Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors. And other connected matters, (2022) 8 SCC 474. Prima facie the said contention appears to be correct inasmuch as the State Commission while passing the Order for deposit of the entire decretal amount has not recorded any special reasons as to why the Petitioner was required to deposit the entire decretal amount on the facts of the case.

Consequently since the Petitioner has already deposited 50% of the decretal amount before the State Commission, the direction given by the State Commission to deposit the entire decretal amount shall remain stayed.

Issue notice to the Respondents calling upon them to answer this Petition, returnable on 13.03.2026.

This compilation shall be registered as a Revision Petition. The Registry shall give a regular number.

This Order shall however be no impediment in the passage of the hearing of the Appeal before the State Commission. The interim order shall continue only until ordered otherwise by this Commission or till the disposal of the Appeal before the State Commission, whichever is earlier.”

3. A copy of the said Order is stated to have been filed before the State Commission and in response to our directions notices were issued by the office whereupon a service report has been received that both the Respondents stand served on 23.12.2025 and 24.12.2025 respectively.

4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents to contest this Revision Petition.

5. The dispute lies in a very short compass namely, that could the State Commission have issued directions for deposit of the entire decretal amount apart from the 50% already deposited as a statutory pre-deposit.

6. We have referred to the legal principles as already enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited (Supra) and the position remains unaltered as such no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending.

7. We therefore confirm the Interim Order dated 09.12.2025 and dispose of this Revision Petition with liberty to the State Commission to pass any appropriate order afresh after recording reasons, if necess