State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Ltd Through Its Managing ... vs Rajshekhar Patil S/O. Gireppa Patil on 27 February, 2026
1
sc/2s/RPls/2o2s
Date of filing: 04.12.2O25
Date of Disposal: 27.02.2026
BEFO RE THE KA NATAKA S TATE CONS UMER DISP UTES
REDRE SSAL COMMI SION, BENG LURU
(PRTNCTPAL BENCH)
DATED: 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA - PRESIDENT
and
MTs. DIWASHREE M - LADY MEMBER
sct29tRPt5t2025 BETWEEN:
TATA MOTORS LTD., (TH ROUG H ITS AUTTIORISED REPRESETATIVE), ATHURA CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR, 82 MAHAKALI CAVE ROAD, ANDHERI MIDC EAST, MUMBAI - 4OOO93, MAHARASTHRA. ........ REVISION PETITIONER/S (BY SRI.RUDRESH, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI. RA]ESHEKHAR PATIL, S/O GIEPPA PATIL, AGE: 43 YEARS, RIO 75/242, KUDAMBAL ROAD, NEAR YALI.ALING TEMPLE, KHB COLONY, CHITGUPPA BIDAR, KARNATAKA-585412.
KSCDRC (PB) 2 sc/29/RP/s/202s
2. THE DEALER TATA MOTORS, SUNDOL AUTOMOTIVES, sY.N.39, PLOT NO.11, !2,13,7g, JANGALKOI, OPP BVB COLLEGE, GUMPA ROAD, BIDAR, KARNATAKA.
RESPONDENT/S ORAL ORDER (PER: HoN'BLE Mr' JUsrrcE T.G. sHTvAsHANKARE GowDA, ,RESTDENT) This Revision petition is fited Uls 47(t)(b) of the Cp Act challenging the order dated 23.t0.2025 passed in cc/74/2o25 on the fire of District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bidar (in short the District Commission)
2. The Revision petitioner was the Opposite party No.1 (in short Op1) and respondent No.1 was the complainant and respondent No.2 was Opposite party No.2 (in short OP2) before the District Commission. Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.
3. The Complainant has filed complaint against the OP Nos.1 and 2 alleging deficiency of service and the complaint was registered with CC/74/2025. The District Commission after accepting the complaint has ordered for KSCDRC (PB) 3 sc/29/RP/s(2025 service of complaint notice against Op Nos.1 and 2. Op1 was served with the notice on 23.04.2025. But he has not appeared on the date of hearing nor filed the version as required U/s 38 of the Cp Act. On Z5.O}.2OZS, the Op1 has filed an application before the District Commission seeking permission to file the version. Since the application is filed after the lapse of 45 days, the District Commission has rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, Op1 has filed the present Revision petition.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner on admission.
5. Now the point that arises for our consideration is:
Whether the order of the District Commission in rejected the apptication fited by the Op1 and refusing to grant permission to file the version is perverse, iltegal and calls for our interference?
6. There is no dispute as to the factual matrix. The simple issue is whether the Op1 can be permitted to file the version beyond 45 days. There is no dispute that the Op1 has entered appearance through his advocate before the District Commission and filed an application seeking permission to file the version on 25.09.2025. Since the KSCDRC (PB) 4 scl2s/RPls/2O2s notice was served on to Op1 on 23.04.2025, by that time 45 days already lapsed. The District Commission has no jurisdiction to accord permission to file the version beyond 30 days, but it can be extended for another 15 days. Hence the application was rejected.
7. It is the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner that notice was served on to its Mumbai Office and not to its head office. The cause title of the Revision Petition refers to the address of the Mumbai Office. There is no other office address is furnished. Even as a State Commission we have no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the version after lapse of 45 days. In that view of the matter, the order of the District Commission is not erroneous. There are no grounds to entertain this Revision Petition. However, OP1 is permitted to participate in the proceedings, lead the evidence and assist the District Commission for effective disposal of the complaint.
8. In that view of the matter, this revision petition fails, in the result, the following; KSCDRC (PB) 5 sc/29/RP/s/202s ORDERS
(i) The Revision Petition is Dismissed.
(ii) Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and pafties to the Revision petition.
(T.G .SHTVASHANKARE GOWDA) PRESIDENT (D H EM) *GGH * LADY MEMBER KSCDRC (PB)