Respondents are not present despite service.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

          Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., which was opposite party No.2 before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Petitioner is the manufacturer of Mahindra & Mahindra Diesel Tractors.  Complainant/Respondent No.1 purchased a diesel tractor Model 605 DM (MICO) 60 h.p. engine from the authorized dealer of the petitioner, namely, M/s.Rajshri Agro Services (Respondent No.2 herein).  The tractor was got financed from M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. (Respondent No.3 herein).  Respondent No.1 alleged that the tractor was second hand and was used for 6-7 months and he was informed that the tractor was of good quality and there were no defects in it.  Warranty of the tractor was for 3 years.  Respondent No.1 further alleged that after using the tractor for a few days, defects in the tractor were noticed.  On 10.7.2002, the tractor stopped functioning and the complainant contacted Respondent No.2 (the dealer), who got the tractor inspected and informed the Respondent No.1 about the leakage of oil due to breaking of piston block because of which the engine had jammed.  Tractor was left by Respondent No.1 with the dealer on 11.7.2002.

          District Forum directed the petitioner and the dealer to repaid the defective tractor within 6 weeks and deliver the same to Respondent No.1.  District Forum further directed the petitioner and the dealer to jointly and severally bear and pay interest payable by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.3 (the financer) from 10.7.2002, i.e., the date on which the tractor was left by the Respondent No.1 for repairs with the dealer till the date the tractor was repaired and made fit for use.  The petitioner and the dealer were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.  Complaint against the finance company was dismissed.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission after a delay of 48 days.  The dealer accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any appeal.  The order against the dealer attained finality.

          By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal on merits as well as the application for condonation of delay.

          Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon Clause 24 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the dealer, which reads as under:

“LEGAL RELATIONSHIP:

The relationship between the Dealer and the Company is on Principal to principal basis and the Dealer is not and shall not be the agent or employee of the Company for any purpose and they shall have no right or authority to assign or create any obligation of any kind, express or implied, on behalf of the Company to bind the Company in any way, to accept any service or process upon the Company or to receive any notice of any nature whatsoever.”

contends that the sale by the petitioner to the dealer was on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis.  That the petitioner could not be held liable for the deficiency committed by the dealer.  That the fora below have erred in holding the petitioner jointly and severally liable along with the dealer to either repaid the tractor or to pay any compensation.

          We find substance in this submission.  A perusal of Clause 24 leaves no doubt that the sale was on principal to principal basis and not principal to agent basis.  The dealer was not the agent of the petitioner.  Any delay in repairing the tractor or the fault, if any, lay with the dealer and not the petitioner.  There was no manufacturing defect in the tractor.  Petitioner could not be held jointly and severally liable to either bear the cost of repairs or to pay compensation.  Fora below have erred in holding the petitioner liable to jointly and severally bear the cost of the repairs and pay compensation, costs and interest to the finance company.

          For the reasons stated above, we accept this Revision Petition to the extent it holds the petitioner jointly and severally liable with the dealer to pay the damages for the loss suffered by the complainant/Respondent No.1.

          In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed.  Complainant is put at liberty to execute the order against the dealer, as the same had attained finality against the dealer.