Taken up through video conferencing. 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (corresponding section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act 2019) in challenge to the Order dated 17.12.2020 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in Appeal No. 322 of 2018 arising out of the Order dated 05.01.2018 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur in Consumer Complaint No. 371 of 2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel on admission. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the District Commission’s Order dated 05.01.2018, the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 17.12.2020 and the Petition. 3. The dispute relates to not honouring the warranty / extended warranty on a new vehicle purchased by the Complainant, the buyer (the Respondent No. 2 herein) from the Opposite Parties No. 1 to No. 3, the dealer (the Petitioners No. 1 to No. 3 herein) 4. The District Commission arrived at findings of deficiency in service and allowed the Complaint on contest against the Opposite Parties No. 1 to No. 3, the dealer (the Petitioners No. 1 to No. 3 herein), and the Opposite Party No. 4, the manufacturer (the Respondent No. 1 herein). It ordered the dealer and the manufacturer to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation & Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation and to repair the subject vehicle free of cost to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It dismissed the Complaint against the Opposite Party No. 5, the insurance co. (the Respondent No. 5 herein) and the Opposite Party No. 6, the service agency (the Respondent No. 6 herein). The liability of the dealer and the manufacturer was joint and several. 5. The manufacturer appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the evidence and arrived at findings of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the dealer. It did not hold the manufacturer liable. The State Commission allowed the appeal and modified the Order of the District Commission to the extent that the liability is of the dealer alone, and not of the manufacturer. It sustained the award made by the District Commission, with the dealer alone being liable. 6. Learned counsel argues that the extended warranty was the responsibility of the service agency, and not of the dealer. This point has been dealt with by the District Commission in paras 12 and 13 of its Order. It has also been dealt with by the State Commission in para 19 of its impugned Order. These are matter of record, for brevity they are not being reproduced here all over again. 7. We may note that it is a proved fact that the consideration for the extended warranty was paid by the Complainant to the dealer, and not to the service agency (or, for that matter, to the insurance co.). As such, the privity of contract was between the Complainant and the dealer, and not between the Complainant and the service agency (and / or the insurance co.). 8. To our mind, no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. Nothing warrants interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. 9. We may observe that, by the very nature of the award, procrastination or undue delay in its satisfaction in itself dilutes its efficacy and continuingly adds to loss and injury, travail and prejudice, to the Complainant. 10. The Petition, being ill-conceived and bereft of worth, frivolous and vexatious, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of District Commission within four weeks from today. The Petitioners are ordered to forthwith satisfy the award made by the District Commission, failing which the District Commission shall immediately undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalties’, as per the law. 11. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the Petition as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. | 
