Mahindra Thar Roxx Owner Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Law To Regulate Vehicle Sales & Services

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 12) issued notice to Chairman & Managing Director of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and to the Chief Executive Officer of Valayat Mahindra Service Centre (Maradu) in a public interest litigation filed by a Mahindra Thar Roxx owner seeking enactment of a proposed 'Kerala Motor Vehicles Sales and Services Regulation' Act and Rules.

According to the plea, the petitioner had recently purchased a new Mahindra Thar Roxx and as the vehicle developed some noise, he had entrusted the same to a Mahindra Service Centre. However, he alleges that the service was deficient, negligent and below expected standards.

The petitioner then made a representation to the aforementioned CEO and MD but to no avail. Subsequently, he made a representation before the Transport department and the Regional Transport officer for the enactment of a law for regulation of vehicle sales and services in the State.

In reply, the Principal Secretary to the Government intimated the petitioner that a copy of his representation has been forwarded to the Transport Commissioner for consideration and a detailed report.

At this juncture, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking urgent intervention in the matter.

"The Petitioner submits that the inaction, negligence, and failure on the part of the Respondents to ensure proper regulation and supervision of authorized motor vehicle service centres have resulted in gross deficiency in service, thereby violating the rights of consumers at large. Such failure is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," states the plea.

The plea makes out a case that the existing legal provisions are inadequate to effectively regulate and monitor the conduct of manufacturers and their authorized service centres, leaving room for vehicle owners vulnerable to be exploited.

When the matter came up for consideration before the Vacation Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen and Justice Muralee Krishna S., it orally questioned the petitioner: "You are asking to make laws because your grievance is not addressed by a company?"

In reply, the petitioner's counsel Adv. Manorajan V.R. pointed out that there is a public issue and that the Consumer Protection Act is inadequate to address the same, being only a reactive legislation and not a proactive one.

The government pleader took notice on behalf of the State, the department of Transport and the Regional Transport Officer. The Court asked the government pleader to take instructions as to whether a similar legislation is there in any other States.

The PIL is posted for consideration next on June 16.

The petition is moved by Advocate Manoranjan V.R.

Case No: WP(PIL) 100/2026

Case Title: TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.