Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The complainant purchased a Maruti Gypsy (King ST) from the petitioner (dealer) on 2.7.1998 and complained that the vehicle could not be driven beyond 90-95 kmph despite the speedometer indicating higher speeds. (!)
• The dealer informed the complainant on 3rd December 1998 that the matter was being taken up with the manufacturer (Maruti Udyog Ltd.), and a letter dated 20th December 1998 from the manufacturer assured action was being taken. (!)
• The manufacturer claimed on 8th February 1999 that a road test conducted on 8th December 1998 showed the vehicle could reach 100 kmph, citing road conditions and safety as reasons not to drive faster. (!)
• The complainant denied the test drive occurred at Bhopal or that the vehicle reached 100 kmph, noting the absence of an affidavit from the test driver or dealer representative. (!)
• The State Commission held the case as res ipsa loquitur and ruled that both the dealer and manufacturer are jointly and severally responsible for manufacturing defects. (!)
• The State Commission directed the respondents to remove defects or provide a new car or repay Rs. 3,49,631 with interest @ 6% p.a., along with Rs. 10,000 for harassment and Rs. 2,000 as costs. (!)
• The manufacturer argued that no expert evidence was produced under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act and that road conditions in India do not permit driving beyond 80 kmph. (!)
• The manufacturer also claimed the warranty was only for one year and covered part replacement, not vehicle replacement or refund, citing the car had run 66,555 km by 2004. (!)
• In another case (Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Atul Bharadwaj), the National Commission found multiple defects including low pick-up and engine missing problems but awarded only Rs. 30,000 compensation. (!)
• The complainant filed the first complaint on 31.8.1998, reiterating issues in subsequent letters, and the dealer confirmed on 3rd December 1998 that the matter was escalated to the manufacturer. (!)
• The manufacturer's letter dated 8.2.1999 stated the vehicle was driven at 100 kmph during a test on 8th December 1999, but neither the dealer's representatives (Mr. Thomas or Mr. Bargle) filed affidavits to corroborate this. (!)
• The National Commission previously held in Scooters India Ltd. v. Smt. G. Kanakalakshmi that a vehicle must meet its specified performance claims, and in Ashok Ramniklal Tolat v. Gallops Pvt. Ltd., punitive damages were awarded for misrepresentation in brochures. (!)
• The Maruti Gypsy King ST-BS III specifications indicate a maximum speed of 126 km/h, and the speedometer shows up to 140 km/h, making the inability to exceed 100 km/h a manufacturing defect. (!)
• The National Commission dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the State Commission's order that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect and no interference was warranted. (!)