STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 118 of 2025 Date of Institution : 03.03.2025 Date of Decision : 25.02.2026 Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at: Plot No.1A, Sipcot Industrial Area, Orgadam, Sriperumpudur, Tamil Nadu – 602 105 Corporate Office at: Third Floor, World Mark-1, Sector 65, Maidawas Village Road, Gurugram ….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus

1] Mr. Lakhwinder Singh S/o Mr. Jarnail Singh, R/o House No.1318/21, Phase 11, Sector 65, Mohali, District SAS Nagar –

160 062

2] Master Anahad Singh R/o House No.1318/21, Phase 11, Sector

65, Mohali, District SAS Nagar – 160 062 (through his father &

natural guardian Mr. Lakhwinder Singh)

…Respondents/Complainants

3] Speed Nissan, Plot No.182-84, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160 002 ….Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Vipin Singhania, Advocate for the appellant (on VC)

Sh. Yashjot Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.3 (on VC)

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the opposite party No.2 – Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (appellant herein) for setting aside order dated 07.02.2025 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’) in MA/7/2024 filed by the complainants (respondents No.1 & 2 herein) for amendment of consumer complaint No.373 of 2023, vide which, the said application has been allowed to the extent of seeking compensation to the tune of ₹10 crores in place of ₹2 crores. The District Commission, while allowing the said application, observed in Para 4 as under:-

“4. From the averments made in the application for amendment of the complaint by the complainant, it is clear that the complainant is only seeking amendment of the quantum of amount prayed in the complaint as earlier the complainant had claimed an amount of Rs.2 crores and now they want to claim an amount of Rs.10 crores in place of Rs.2 crores and thereby sought amendment to that effect only in Para No.9 and prayer clause where they want to substitute the word Rs.10 Crores in place of Rs.2 crores as the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission has already been decided by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh by holding that the consideration of the said vehicle was only Rs.7,61,500/- and the complainants are only now seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Crores in place of Rs.2 Crores by replacing the amount of compensation as Rs.10 Crores in place of Rs.2 Crores in Para No.9 and prayer clause of the complaint, to our mind in case the aforesaid amendment is allowed, the same is not going to change the nature of the present complaint or cause any loss especially when the OPs will get an opportunity to file their amended written version and to take all necessary objection after the amendment of the complaint. Accordingly, in the ends of justice, the application in hand for amendment of complaint is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- to be deposited by the complainants with Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGI, Chandigarh and receipt be produced before this Commission by next date. It be tagged with the main complaint.”

2] It is the contention of the appellant – opposite party No.2 in appeal that the impugned order allowing amendment of the complaint suffers from patent illegality and non-application of mind inasmuch as the District Commission permitted a fivefold enhancement of compensation from ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore without examining whether such amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and solely on the erroneous premise that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant. It has further been contended that the District Commission failed to appreciate that the amendment sought to resile from a conscious and repeated admission