##PAGE1##

M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

REVISION PETITION NO. 93/2022

1. Smt. Geeta Singh

W/o Late Rajbhan Singh

University Road

Behind Sneh Complex

Anantpur

Rewa (M.P.)

2. Nrependra Singh

S/o Late Rajbhan Singh

3. Mrigendra Singh

S/o Late Rajbhan Singh

All resident of - 10/287

Anantpur, Rewa

District Rewa (M.P.) ... Petitioners

VERSUS.

M/s Aggarwal Motors

Padra, National Highway No.7

Rewa (M.P.). ... Respondent

BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

MS. SHIVALI SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS.

SHRI LALIT GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.

O R D E R

( 28.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by

Hon’ble Member, Dr. Monika Malik.

: 2 :

By this revision petition, the complainants/petitioners,

are assailing interim order dated 23.8.2022, passed by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa

(for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No.

384/2010, by which the District Commission has dismissed

applications (I.A.-2 and I.A.-3), for impleading M/s Tata Motors

Ltd. and M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. as party to the complaint

and to make certain amendments in the complaint respectively.

2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that since the

complainants have filed the complaint alleging manufacturing

defect in the vehicle (Tata Magic), the manufacturer of the said

vehicle viz. Tata Motors is a necessary party. Like-wise during

currency of the warranty period, there was fault in the vehicle

after running only 1800 Kms. and it was taken to the showroom

on several occasions and since the defect could not be rectified,

they left the vehicle with the dealer on 31.12.2010 and they want

to bring this fact on record. Therefore, I.A.-2 and I.A.-3 were filed

for amendment in the complaint. She further submits that the

District Commission has committed gave error in stating that the

complainant’s legal representatives are bringing out a new case

: 3 :

and it is an afterthought. She thus prays that the impugned order

be set aside and interlocutory application I.A.-2 and I.A.-3, filed

by the complainants before the District Commission be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the

impugned order and submits that the revision petition is liable to

be dismissed.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. On perusal of record, we find the instant complaint was

filed on 10.8.2010 by late Rajbhan Singh and as observed by the

District Commission there is no mention that since the vehicle

could not be rectified the complainant had left the vehicle with

the dealer. After death of complainant on 28.4.2021, his legal

heirs moved an application (I.A.-3) on 22.4.2021, seeking

amendment in the complaint, after about 11 years of filing of

complaint, on the ground that the legal representatives can only

continue the proceedings of their predecessor and they are not

permitted to institute a new case. It has also been observed by

the District Commission that since the amendment application

has been filed after about 11 years, the proposed amendment is

barred by limitation

: 4 :

7. Late complainant-Rajbhan Singh had filed the complaint

alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle but he had not

impleaded the manufacturer i.e. M/s Tata Motors Ltd. and M/s

Tata Motors Finance Company, as parties to the complainant.

However after his death his legal heirs have moved I.A.-2 dated

22.4.2021, i.e. after about 11 years of filing of complaint for

impleading them as parties, which the District Commission has

rightly dismissed on the ground that it attracts Section-22 of the

Limitation Act, 1963.

8. Accordingly, we do find any illegality or infirmity in the

impugned order, so as to interfere in it.

9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

(JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)

PRESIDENT MEMBER

Mercy