ORDER

M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member - The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No. 569/2002. In fact the complaint was numbered as OP 569/99 and by mistake in the impugned order the year of institution of the complaint No. 569 has been shown as 2002. The correct year of institution is 1999. In effect impugned order has been passed in OP No. 569/99. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 namely the manufacturer and dealer of the vehicle Tata Sumo which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 3rd opposite party was the manufacturer of the tyres of the disputed vehicle Tata Sumo. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version contending that there was no manufacturing detect and that the complainant Smt. K. Komalavally is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also contended that the complainant Smt. K. Komalavally is employed in KSEB and so she cannot be considered as the consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Before the Forum below the compla