Although there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in the present case but even if we condone the delay, we find that the order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified and is strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Commission in catena of decisions.  There is no question of replacement of the vehicle in the given circumstances as no manufacturing defect was established in the vehicle in question.  In our view, the direction to the manufacturer/dealer to repair the vehicle is subject to the satisfaction of an automobile engineer in that behalf is the proper relief.  We see no illegality, material irregularity or any jurisdictional error, which warrants any interference of this Commission in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.