JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This order shall decide two revision petitions detailed above which arise from the common judgment and order of the State Commission, dated 29.11.2012. Sh. N. Anil Chandra Gowd, the complainant, is the owner of Ford Ikon, which he purchased in May, 2000 and was using the same. In May, 2009, the car stopped and it required some repairs. M/s. Fortune Ford, OP1 agreed to repair the car at Rs.21,610/-. The daughter of the complainant went for a test drive after repairs. However, during the test drive, she found that the car was not properly repaired. The car was brought back to M/s.Fortune Ford, OP1. OP1 did not return the car because it asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for further repairs. The complainant did not pay even Rs.21,610/-. The complainant expressed the view that the value of the car, 10 yearsback, was Rs.1,50,000/- and the repair charges were on the higher side. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. 2. The complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and directed the OPs (M/s. Fortune Ford, OP1 & M/s. Ford India, OP2) to repair the vehicle as promised in the Agreement, Ex.B1 and get the estimated amount whatsoever, as mentioned in Ex.B1. It also directed that the OPs shall give back the vehicle to the complainant, within four weeks, from the date of receipt of the order, together with compensation and costs in the sum of Rs.20,000/-. 3. Aggrieved by that order, first Revision Petition No.616 of 2013 was filed by Sh.N.Anil Chandra Gowd, before a DB, consisting of Justice J.M.Malik and Dr.B.C.Gupta, at Circuit Bench, Hyderabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2013. 4. Now, these two revision petitions have been filed by the OPs, separately, with a delay of 2 days and 37 days, respectively. For the reasons set out in the applications for condonation of delay, the delay in both cases, is hereby condoned. 5. It is difficult to fathom as to why M/s. Ford India, OP2, was arrayed as a party in this case. It has no role to play. The defects which cropped up after 9 yearsof the sale of the car, has nothing to do with the manufacturer. When we enquired from the complainant, who appeared in person, he stated that, because this car pertains to M/s. Ford India, therefore, he had filed a case against it. We are of the considered view that M/s. Ford India, is not a necessary party. The main grouse of the complainant is against the Repairer, M/s. Fortune Ford, OP1. It is well settled that Manufacturer is not liable for the acts of Dealer. This is an indisputable fact that the vehicle in question is 10 yearsold and is not covered by any warranty and as such, OP2 is not liable for the act committed by OP1. This view neatly dovetails with the authorities reported in Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs. Arjun Singh & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 22 (NC) and Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Nagender Prasad Sinha & Anr., II (2009) CPJ 295 (NC). Consequently, we hereby set aside the order passed against M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., OP2. 6. Now we turn to the case of M/s. Fortune Ford. Ex.B2 is a crucial document. It clearly goes to show that the complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.21,610/-, as per the Pre-Invoice. The complainant was also offered to pay additional costs of Rs.1,20,000/- for additional repairs, after the test run, but the complainant did not agree to the same, because the vehicle was 10 yearsold. The State Commission also held : brief perusal of the communication, i.e., the emails between the complainant and the opposite parties clearly shows that the complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party that fumes were coming from the hood and the engine was emanating noises during the test run and when the opposite parties representatives were present during the test run, there are no substantial reasons as to why the car was being run without a coolant. It is the opposite parties main contention that the fumes from the hood are because of lack of coolant during the test run. Secondly, without an approved estimate, the opposite party cannot now demand an additional cost of Rs.1,20,000/-, the details of the said estimate have also not been filed. Taking into consideration the equities and also the fact that the car is a 10 year old lying with the opposite party No.1, we are of the considered opinion that the repairs as promised in Ex.B1 are to be carried out and the complainant is directed to pay the amount and take back his vehicle within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order together with compensation of Rs.15,000/- as the vehicle was lying with the opposite party since the year 2009, i.e., more than 3 years, for which period, the complainant could not use the vehicle. We also award costs of Rs.5,000/- 7. Counsel for M/s. Fortune Ford, vehemently argued that the car has been ready for delivery and that the defects have been rectified but the complainant is not taking the delivery of the car. He contended that the complainant is liable to pay the parking charges. 8. It is clear that the OP1 should have repaired the car for a sum of Rs.21,610/-. It is strange to find out that after repairing the car, he gave an offer of Rs.1,20,000/- for further repairs. The total value of the car is stated to be Rs.1,50,000/-. This is deficiency of service on the part of the OP1. The party should stick to Ex.B1. The order passed by the State Commission is without any flaw. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition filed by M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd., OP2 (RP 1107 of 2013) stands accepted and complaint filed against it is dismissed. The revision petition filed by M/s. Fortune Ford, OP1 (RP No. 1414 of 2013), stands dismissed. No order as to costs.