State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. vs Lakhwinder Singh on 25 February, 2026
1
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 2 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 3 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 made in the original complaint and supporting affidavit, where the figure of ₹2 crore was stated at multiple places thereby ruling out any plea of inadvertent typographical error. It has further been submitted that belated application, absence of supporting material justifying the astronomical increase, prior invocation of jurisdiction consistent with the original valuation and pendency of other claims further demonstrate arbitrariness and mala fides. It has further been submitted that by allowing a material alteration in the relief clause without reasoned consideration, the District Commission has acted unjustly and contrary to settled principles governing amendments, rendering the order arbitrary, unreasoned and liable to be set aside in appellate jurisdiction under Sections 41 and 47 of the Act.
43] On the other hand, Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 - complainants has argued that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the contents of the application and the prayer made therein and the appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
4] Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned order and the material available on record, we find no merit in the grounds raised in the present appeal. It is not in dispute that the amendment allowed by the District Commission is confined only to the enhancement of the quantum of compensation from ₹2 crores to ₹10 crores in Para No.9 and the prayer clause of the complaint, without any alteration whatsoever in the foundational facts, pleadings relating to alleged deficiency in service, cause of action, nature of transaction or relief otherwise claimed. The controversy between the parties revolves around the alleged defect in the vehicle and the consequent claim for compensation. In our view, the amendment allowed by the District Commission neither introduces a new cause of action nor changes the character or very nature of the complaint. It is well settled proposition of law that procedural law is handmade to justice and amendments which are necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute and which do not alter the basic structure of the case ought to be liberally permitted. The District Commission has specifically observed in its order under appeal that the question of pecuniary jurisdiction already stood settled earlier and that the opposite parties would have full opportunity to file amended written statements and raise all permissible objections. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that amendment of pleadings including enhancement of the relief originally claimed is permissible so long as it does not change the fundamental nature of the case and is necessary for determining the 5 real controversy between the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court in DINESH GOYAL @ PAPPU Vs. SUMAN AGARWAL (BINDAL) & ORS., 2024 INSC 726, after citing its previous judgment in case Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 90 and after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles, interalia, that "(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint." In Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para 16 as under:-
"16. As pointed out earlier, the application was filed after 27 years of filing of the suit. Of course, the power to allow the amendment of suit is wide and the court should not adopt hyper technical approach. In considering amendment applications, court should adopt liberal approach and amendments are to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigations. We are conscious that mere delay is not a ground for rejecting the amendment."
In Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc, AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2832, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"It is well settled by various decisions of Hon'ble this Court as well as the High Courts in India that Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung (AIR 1922 P.C. 249) in which the Privy Council observed:
"All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally 6 exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject- matter of the suit.""
Further in Para 9, inter-alia, as under:-
".........A bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the Court shall allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in disposal of Suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously........"
5] Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has established that an amendment to a consumer complaint to modify the compensation claimed is permissible, provided it does not alter the fundamental character of the complaint, cause undue prejudice to the opposite party, or raise issues of limitation. The overarching principle is to allow amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 6] Therefore, in our concerted view, the plea of prejudice raised by the appellant is more illusory than real inasmuch as no vested right is taken away and no new factual foundation is laid which would require a fundamentally different defence. The mere enhancement of the amount claimed, by itself, does not amount to 7 withdrawal of an admission on merits of liability, as the admission, if any, relates to the factual matrix and not to the quantification of damages, which is ultimately subject to adjudication on evidence. 7] The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the amendment is belated or mala fide also does not hold substance as the proceedings were still at a stage where no final adjudication had taken place and the opposite parties have been granted adequate opportunity to meet the amended claim. It may be stated here that the Consumer Protection Act 2019, being a beneficial legislation, mandates a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach rather than a hyper-technical one and the District Commission, by imposing costs and safeguarding the right of the opposite parties to respond to the amended pleadings, has struck a proper balance between procedural fairness and substantive justice.
8] In the present case, a careful perusal of the amendment allowed by the learned District Commission vide the impugned order would show that there has been no alteration in the foundational facts constituting the cause of action. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment has changed the nature or character of the consumer complaint or that it has set up a new case altogether. The identity of the dispute remains intact and the appellants-opposite parties are not taken by surprise nor deprived of an opportunity to meet the case. Consequently, the amendment allowed by the District Commission does not suffer from any legal infirmity as there has been no change in the cause of action originally set up in the consumer complaint. 9] Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, we expect that the District Commission shall expeditiously decide the consumer complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of record.
810] Pending application(s), if any, in this appeal also stands dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
11] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
12] The original record of CC/373/2023 (in safe custody) alongwith copy of this order be immediately sent to the District Commission concerned.
13] File be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced 25.02.2026 (PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad 9