Both these revision petitions are in respect of the same consumer complaint filed by the complainant M.A. Bashyam Respondent -1 before the District Forum. The District Forum, Ernakulam before whom this complaint no.92 of 2007 was filed against the petitioners, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 30.08.2008. The two petitioners in Revision Petition No.2858 of 2009 were OPs - 2 & 3 and the sole petitioner in Revision Petition No.4470 of 2009 was OP before the District Forum. While accepting the consumer complaint, the District Forum directed as under:- i) the 1st and 2nd opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to replace the car in question with a brand new one of the same price and model to the complainant and in that event the complainant shall return the old car to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties simultaneously, or in the alternative. (ii) the 1st and 2nd opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,10,800/- being the total expenses incurred by the complainant for the car together with 12% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till realization, the amount being equally shared by both the parties and in that case also the complainant shall return the impugned car either to the 1st or the 2nd opposite party on receipt of the said amount. (iii) the 1st and 2nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs. The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2. Instead of challenging the order of the District Forum jointly, the OP-3 file his appeal bearing no.3/09 before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission first which came to be dismissed vide State Commission order dated 26.03.2009 and OPs 1 & 2 filed their appeal bearing no.92 of 2009 separately which came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation vide State Commission order dated 16.06.2009. Aggrieved by the orders of the State Commission, OPs 1 & 2 have filed Revision Petition No.2858 of 2009 and OP-3 has filed Revision Petition No.4470 of 2009, both of which have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their status/nomenclature before the District Forum. 3. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a brand new Ambassador car from OP-2 manufactured by OP 1 for a sum of Rs.4,91,000/-. But right from the day one onwards, this car was having several problems like excessive heat, unusual smoke, fluid leak, air conditioner problem, defects in suspension system, etc. etc. Because of the complaints made by the complainant with the OPs, it appears that the engine of the car was replaced and rectification work was carried out. However, when the troubles persisted in spite of replacement of engine and repair works done by the OPs, the complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the District Forum seeking the following reliefs against the OPs:- (i) Replacement of the car with the new one (ii) Pay amount of Rs.38,000/- with interest incurred by the complainant by way of taxi charges. (iii) Pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony (iv) Costs of the proceedings. The OPs resisted the complaint filing their versions disputing the allegations. Based on the submissions made by the parties and the evidence adduced, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint as above. The appeals filed by the OPs were also dismissed by the State Commission and hence the two revisions have been filed by the OPs. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners / OPs 2 & 3 in RP No.2858 of 2009 and learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in RP 4470 of 2009 is represented through his proxy since he is busy elsewhere. It is not disputed that petitioners in RP No.2858/2009 were parties in the appeal filed by OP-1 which was considered on merits but dismissed by the State Commission. While dismissing the appeal of OPs 2 & 3 on the ground of limitation, the State Commission mentioned about this aspect in its order that the appeal has already been considered on merits earlier and dismissed and the finding of the District Forum has been upheld. In view of this, we reject the plea of petitioners in RP No.2858 of 2009 in respect of the ground of limitation. We have, however, considered the submissions made by the parties and those at bar carefully so far as the merits are concerned since the order of the District Forum in question is common. Admittedly, because of the persistent problems experienced by the complainant in the running of the car purchased from the OP, the engine of the car came to be replaced. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that there is no case now in favour of the complainant so far as this car is concerned. In the circumstances, the fora below erred in directing the petitioners to replace the car or in the alternative to pay the amount of Rs.5,10,800/- to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the fact that in spite of replacement of the engine, the troubles have persisted thereafter also and the same were duly brought to the notice of the OPs as can be seen from the letter dated 24.11.2006 of OPs 2 & 3 and letter dated 28.11.2006 of OP-1, copies of which are placed on file. In the circumstances, there was no option before the District Forum but to allow the complaint and direct replacement of the vehicle which was not functioning satisfactorily as one would expect in the case of a new vehicle. He further submitted that the finding of the District Forum which has been duly upheld by the State Commission is based on the facts duly supported by the evidence adduced by the complainant against which no evidence has been adduced by the OPs. In the circumstances, there is no force in the two revision petitions filed by the OPs and the same are liable to be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions and perused the record before us, we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the findings of the fora below which would call for our interference. Both the revision petitions, therefore, stand dismissed with no order as to costs.