1. These revision petitions have been filed under S.21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the common Order dated 4.8.2010 of the State Commission in appeals No. 395 of 2009 and No. 1141 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 19.2.2009 of the District Commission in complaint No. 426 of 2006
M/s. Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. was the complainant before the District Commission and is hereinafter being referred to as the ˜complainant co.'.
M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. was the opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission and is hereinafter referred to as the ˜manufacturer.
M/s. Lally Motors Ltd. was the opposite parties No. 2 and No. 3 before the District Commission and is hereinafter being referred to as the ˜dealer'.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant co. and and have perused the record. (The dealer was Order dated 23.9.2014.)

3. Briefly, the complainant co. had filed a complaint alleging defects in car bought by it.
The District Commission vide its Order dated 19.2.2009 held that ... the vehicle has manufacturing defect, which was latent in nature.... It allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer and the dealer (jointly and severally) to replace the