1. Sri M. Mahendra Kumar, the Complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, is the 2nd Respondent in this Revision Petition. His complaint before the District Forum was against Fiat India Ltd, its dealer in Vijaywada and an automobile dealer of Kakinanda. 2. The complainant, had paid a sum of Rs 6,76,690 for purchase of a Fiat Petra car. The vehicle offered did not have all the features that he was promised and was willing to pay for. He refused to accept delivery. The District Forum therefore, ordered refund of the amount with 12 % interest, by the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No 2 alone, dismissing the claim against the other two. The dealer went in appeal before the State Commission against the other two, impleading the complainant himself as the 3rd respondent. In this appeal, the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum, holding that Opposite Party No. 3 is jointly responsible with OP-2 for refund. OP-3 has now filed this Revision Petition before us, impleading the other three as respondents. 3. The case of the RP is that – a. As the consideration was received by OP-2, there can be no liability on OP-3 i.e. the RP, for refund thereof. b. The State Commission has given no grounds for holding that all the while the vehicle in question has been with him and he has been using it. 4. On the first issue, interestingly enough, the revision petition itself provides the justification for the order of the State Commission when it states in Para 7 (it should have been numbered as 8) that “The present case arose when the complainant in order to purchase a new car, approached the O.P. No.3 and proposed to purchase FIAT PETRA CAR. The Opposite Party No.3 has shown 2 models, one is PETRA CAR 1.9 DEL and another PETRA CAR 1.9 DELX. The features of both models are different. The prices of PETRA CAR DEL 1.9 is nearly Rs.6,76,690/- whereas the price of PETRA CAR 1.9 DELX is Rs. 7,18,000/-, which has additional features also. O.P. No.3 represented to the Complainant that EURO II model is not in existence and all the features of EURO II model are incorporated in EURO III model with some additional features and insisted to take FIAT 1.9 PETRA CAR. Basing on the representation made by opposite parties Nos.2 and 3, booked PETRA CAR 1.9 DEL and paid an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 23.5.2005 and balance amount of Rs.4,76,690/- was paid by way of demand draft dt. 1.6.2005. When the complainant went to take delivery of the car, he found that the features of EURO II model as represented by the opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 are not available in Euro III model and the said fact was informed to opposite parties Nos.2 and 3..” Again, in Para 10 the revision petition says that “During the course of business, the authorized dealers usually asked O.P. No.3 to book vehicles for which he will be given commission for each transaction. O.P. No.3 being the agency for O.P. Nos.1 and 2 has shown two models namely FIAT 1.9 DEL AND PETRA 1.9 DELX and both these models have different features and prices. The complainant requested for purchase of FIAT PETRA 1.9 DEL EURO III model and accordingly booked the same. At the time of booking no such vehicle was displayed in the office of O.P. No.3 and as the complainant himself who has been using Fiat Car for over 15 years, was interested in buying FIAT PETRA 1.9 DEL EURO III model and accordingly placed an order on O.P. 2and paid an advance of Rs.2,00,000/- for booking the order on 23.05.2005. The said amount was sent to O.P. No.2. Thereafter the complainant availed of a loan for an amount of Rs.4,76,000/- from Bank of India, Kakinada. Which amount was also remitted to O.P. No.2 and thereafter O.P. No.3 wrote a letter to O.P No.2 asking them to send one FIAT PETRA 1.9 DEL EURO III to the complainant. Accordingly, after acknowledging the payment, O.P. No.2 sent the vehicle to O.P. No.3 for delivery to the complainant, on 02.06.2005, endorsing the requisite documents in the name of the complainant.” It is clear that the RP had shown the car to the prospective customer/Complainant, arranged to send the purchase price from him to the dealer and advised the dealer to send the vehicle. We therefore, do not consider it necessary to look beyond and feel that the RP’s own averments detail the role played by him and the inherent responsibility flowing therefrom. 5. Coming to the other issue raised by the RP, we find that the averments in Paras 10,11 and 12 in the revision petition show that on RP’s advice the vehicle was sent by the dealer. When the buyer/complainant refused to accept delivery, on the ground of absence of certain promised features, he wrote to the dealer on 4.6.2005 to take back the car. Thus, by his own admission the car had remained with him. From his Written Submission before the State Commission, it is seen that when he received the car in question from the dealer in Vijaywada, it was without Forms No. 20 and 21. In the absence of these documents, the resultant situation becomes a ‘fait accompli.’ It is in this background that the State Commission has observed that – “ The District Forum has allowed the complaint against OP 2 alone without taking into consideration of the fact that OP 3 has custody of the vehicle all the while without taking steps either to return it to the complainant or to OP 2. All the while he has been using the vehicle and failed to explain for it.” 6. In our view, the consequence resulting from the role played by him in this entire matter, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs, will not undergo any material change even if it is assumed that he had merely kept the car with himself and not used it. The fact remains that he was the crucial link in the supply of the car by the dealer in Vijaywada and payment of the purchase price by the intended customer in Kakinanda. 7. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in Appeal No. 1573/2007 is confirmed. The parties to bear their own costs.