STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/247/2017 KOYENCO AUTO PRESENT ADDRESS - .Jyothi complex, west fort, Thrissur now functioning at NH 47 ByePass road, Maradu, Kochi- 682304,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus AJITHA BAI PRESENT ADDRESS - Panthalangattu house, Mulamkunnathil veedu, Pottor, Thrissur,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 24/02/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.247/2017 ORDER DATED : 24.02.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.953/2005 on the files of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

M/s Koyenco Autos (P) Ltd, Jyothi Complex, West Fort, Thrissur now functioning at NH 47 Bye pass Road, Maradu, Kochi 682 304 (by Adv. Prinsun Philip & Adv. Reghukumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Ajitha Bai Chandran, Panthalangattu House, Mulamkunnathkavu P.O, Pottor, Thrissur (Adv. Rakendu.K.I)

2. st M/s/ Tata Motors Ltd. Rep.by its Managing Director, I Floor, Vasundhara Bldg, T.D.Road, Ernakulam, Now at M/s. Tata Motors th Ltd, 4 Floor, Liv N Tower, Opp. Gold Souk, N.H Bye-pass Road, Vytila, Kochi-19 (by Adv. V.Krishnamenon & Adv. Surya.J)

3.

Sherry Shine, Sales Executive, Koyenco Autos (P) Ltd, West Fort, Thrissur

4.

Burfos, Asst. Sales Manager, Koyenco Autos (P) Ltd, West Fort, Thrissur

5.

Col. Mathews (Retd.), General Manager (Operations), Koyenco Autos (P) Ltd. 29/1394, Sreelakshmi Chambers, N.H.Bye Pass, Vytila, Kochi.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the second opposite party in C.C.No.953/2005 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short, the ‘District Commission’).

2. The complainant is a housewife and her husband is working abroad. The complainant purchased a Tata Indigo car on 06.04.2005 from the second opposite party for an amount of Rs. 4,99,611/-. The said car was manufactured by the first opposite party. On 20.04.2005, the third opposite party had taken the vehicle from the residence of the complainant for the purpose of fixing new seat covers. However, the vehicle was not returned even on the next day. Even though the complainant tried to contact the third opposite party, who was the employee of the second opposite party, who had taken the vehicle from the house of the complainant, he was not available. On 22.04.2005, the third opposite party informed the complainant over the telephone that there was a defect in the functioning of the power steering and to correct it by the company, the complainant should give the signature on a paper and accordingly, the complainant handed over a signed paper to the third opposite party. On 04.05.2005 at 7.30 p.m., the third opposite party returned the vehicle to the complainant. On the next day, the complainant noticed that the vehicle had run 751 Km. It was further noticed by the complainant that the vehicle had undergone major repair on the entire front portion and the engine room on account of a major accident. The attempt of the complainant to contact the third opposite party and find out the details of the accident had been proved to be in vain. The complainant had suffered much hardships and mental agony, and hence the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The opposite party Nos. 1, 4 and 6 filed version contending that they had no control over the third opposite party who had taken the vehicle from the residence of the complainant. The second and the third opposite parties were set ex-parte. Since the appeal was filed by the second opposite party, we are concerned only about the contentions of the second opposite party. However, the second opposite party did not file any version before the District Commission.

4. B