Heard Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Manufacturer, Counsel for Complainant/R-1 and Counsel for R-2. It appears from proceedings that R-2 and R-3 were being represented by Shri A.P. Shrivastava, Counsel. However none appears today on behalf of R-3. It seems that R-2 has chosen not to contest proceedings at this stage. The factual backgrounds are that a tractor manufactured in the year 1998 was shown to the Complainant/R-1 presenting it to be a new model of 2002. That apart, there being also deficiency with functioning of tractor, Complainant aggrieved, filed a consumer complaint with District Forum arraying both manufacturer and Kalinga Agency thedealer. However, for the reasons best known to him, R-1 dropped Respondent Kalinga Agency from proceedings. It is how that the District Forum proceeded against manufacturer alone as opposite party. Though complaint was contested by petitioner before District Forum, District Forum having overruled objections, accepting Complaint directed Petitioner manufacturer to either replace tractor in question or to refund Rs. 2,65,900/- along-with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved manufacturer which is Petitioner before us preferred appeal before State Commission where State Commission on its own motion to do justice in the matter, issued notice against two erstwhile partners R-2 and 3 of Kalinga Agency. As there was no break-through in the matter for want of appearance of Respondents, State Commission took recourse to publication of notice in newspapers to ensure their appearance in the proceedings. The Respondent No. 2 & 3 even then had not chosen to contest proceedings and that is how that the State Commission having proceeded ex-parte against them held both manufacturer and partners of erstwhile Kalinga Agency liable either to replace the tractor or refund costs while affirming basic finding of the District Forum. The Petitioner against the aforesaid finding of the State Commission preferred present Revision Petition. As per the dealership agreement shown to have been executed between the parties manufacturer not be held responsible for any acts of omission or commission of the dealer said to have been carried out on behalf of the manufacturer, relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer to be that of principal to principal. Having considered submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner and also the findings recorded by fora below about unfair trade practice adopted by dealer, while modifying award of the State Commission we hold that while manufacturer was not liable to honour award of the State Commission, liability would be only of the dealers i.e. R-2 & R-3. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms with no orders as to costs. R-2 & R-3 are accordingly directed to honour award of the State Commission within a period of two months failing which that will carry interest @ 6% p.a. If any amount is already deposited by petitioner that will be dealt with in terms of the finding recorded by us.