Against common order of District Forum finding deficiency with petitioner - Manufacturer of Tata Indica Car and also with its Authorised Dealer – Hind Motors (India) Ltd., both Manufacturer and Dealer went in appeal before State Commission. State Commission in its prudence, while upholding basic finding of District Forum about deficiency in service of petitioners, modifying award, reduced compensation from Rs. 1,45,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-. However, litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- remained unaltered. Cost of appeal of Rs.500/- was also imposed on petitioners. Award of State Commission was with a default clause to pay interest @ 6% p.a. in case award was not honoured within two months from date of receipt of certified copy of order. Facts of case have been elaborately set out in order of the District Forum and also of State Commission which can be noticed with brevity. Since brand new Tata Indica Car purchased by Balwinder Singh Sood – respondent, on 07.01.2000 for consideration of Rs. 2,90,064/- from M/s. Hind Motors (India) Ltd. – Authorised Dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. suffered problem of suspension, wheel-balancing being not proper, tyre fitted with vehicle getting worn off shortly and engine of car getting seized on 09.05.2001, vehicle was taken to Authorised Dealer. After car was taken on trial run, it was found that it was reducing engine oil. Exercise of rectification made by Authorised Dealer was also entered in Owner’s Manual of the Car. As defects had surfaced within warranty period of 18 months, eventually, door of consumer fora was knocked, filing a complaint before District Forum, seeking replacement of car or in the alternate, refund of value of car along-with compensation. As for problem of suspension and wheel alignment, entry dated 04.11.2000 made in maintenance record was evident. Tyres of car were also replaced on ‘pro-rata’ basis by Dealer. District Forum, however, found these defects to be serious one when engine of car seized on 09.02.2001, within a short span of 13 months of purchase of the car and also during warranty period. Job card of 09.02.2001 was, however, not placed on record by Authorised Dealer and District Forum took it adverse to them. Complaint about high consumption of engine oil was also attributed and District Forum had put reliance on affidavit of a Mechanic, though receipts showing frequent purchases of engine oil was put on record but rightly that being no evidence of clinching nature and also pertaining to subsequent period, do not carry much credence. State Commission too, having taken notice of defects persisting with vehicle, though upheld finding of District Forum about vehicle having suffered serious defects, modified award reducing compensation as awarded by District Forum. As for tyre, shortly suffering wearing and getting bald, after purchase of vehicle, these are consumable items and warranty terms are not applicable on them. Extracts of tyre warranty are in following terms :- “Warranty for 12 months : (Except tyres and batteries originally supplied by us, which is within 12 months)”. Certain limitations wherein the warranty does not apply are listed below :- 1) tyres/tubes, battery and propriety items or special equipment items if any, are covered by respective manufacturer’s of warranty but tyre manufacturers warrant your tyres since tyre supplied with car by Manufacturer/Authorised Dealer does not carry warranty, it would be the liability of tyre Manufacturer. If we go by finding of National Commission in this context, similar observations were made by National Commission in OP No. 65/1995. So grievance of respondent with regard to wearing of tyre was not the concern of either the Manufacturer or Authorised Dealer of vehicle. Common arguments canvassed on behalf of petitioner were that since respondent did not avail initial ‘free services’ he was not eligible to take benefit of warranty terms. Contentions were raised that since respondent was regularly utilizing car and the vehicle was in road-worthy condition, he was getting satisfactory performance, grievance raised by him did not carry significance. As for complaint of high-consumption of mobile oil, referring to complaint petition, learned counsel would urge that there was no such complaint made therein and hence, grievance on this score was out of consideration and reliance on this score was also placed on a decision of National Commission in the matter of Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. P.K. Chakkappore & Anr. in FA No. 134/1996 in which it was held by this Commission that excessive oil consumption could not be said to be a ‘manufacturing defect’. That apart, diesel driven car has high consumption of oil compared to petrol driven car. Learned counsel for manufacturer – company would yet urge that since relationship between Manufacturer and Authorized Dealer was that of ‘principal to principal’ basis, and Dealer was not an ‘agent’ of principal, Manufacturer cannot be held to be liable for other defects than manufacturing one. New car suffered problem of suspension, wheel balancing being not proper and on trial run, car being found reducing engine oil within a short span of its purchase, car being taken off and on to Authorised Workshop which was evident from the Owner’s Manual of the Car. Lower fora have taken notice of these aspects of the issue and since these were not major defects evidencing manufacturing shortcomings of the vehicle, relief sought for either replacement of car or refund of value did not find favour with them. However, taking notice of certain defects, a short narration of which has been given above, awarded compensation for there being deficiency in service on part of petitioners. However, since defects noticed are not manufacturing defects and relationship between Manufacturer and Authorised Dealer being that of ‘principal to principal’, Manufacturer would be immune from liability to honour the award. Revision petition of Manufacturer (RP No. 3314/2004) is accordingly accepted and finding of State Commission as for manufacturer too, to share liability, is setaside. Resultantly, since it would be the liability of Authorised Dealer to honour the award, RP No. 3298/2004 bearing no merit, is dismissed.