ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 22.12.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dismissing Appeal No. A-511 filed against the order dated 25.11.1999 of a District Forum in Complaint No. 45 of 1998. It is not in dispute that photocopier machine was purchased by Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit Jati Zila Vikas Nigam Ltd. for Rs. 93,165 from the revision petitioner and machine was thereafter supplied by respondent No. 2 (Nigam Limited) to respondent No. 1. It was alleged that since the photocopier machine went out of order, the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Forum on 9.1.1997. On 14.1.1997 while the machine was functioning, it suddenly stopped, engineers of HCL Limited came and repaired the machine, but the machine stopped working from 25.3.1997 and despite several complaints it was not repaired by the respondent. Though written submissions were filed by the opposite party, latter on it did not remain present, but on the other hand the complainant had filed an affidavit in support of his complaint and produced the record of purchasing the machine.
2. After hearing the parties, the District Forum directed the HCL Ltd., to replace the machine within a month from the date of the order and make payment of Rs. 20,000 as compensation. In case of non-compliance, the company was directed to return Rs. 93,165 the cost of the machine with 12% yearly interest from the date of defect in the machine till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the HCL Ltd., filed an appeal before the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh. After hearing the parties the State Commission dismissed the appeal and the company was directed to replace the machine within a period of two months by a new machine after accepting the old machine which was in possession of the complainant and if the machine is not replaced within the stipulated period, the appellant company was directed to make the payment of Rs. 93,165 along with simple interest @ 6% per annum to the Nigam from whom the loan was taken by the company. Hence, this revision.
3. The short submissions advanced by Mr. Banthia is that the petitioner is willing to repair the photocopier machine even today and make it in a smooth running condition and even after it fails they are prepared to replace the same. Further, the complainant had over used the machine hence it went out of order frequently. He has further stated that he was earning an amount of Rs. 200 per day which would have meant his gross earning per day would have been Rs. 500. It is not disputed that the photocopier machine was expected to produce 50,000 copies per month which means monthly capacity is around 15,000 copies. At the rate of Re. 1 per copy, assuming that photocopier machine was used on all days and weeks which generally does not happen, gross per income would be Rs. 500 per day and the income of Rs. 200 per day which tallies with the submissions made by the complainant which falsifies the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the machine was overused.
4. The machine had gone out of order as long back as in the year 1997, and the affidavit filed by the complainant regarding defect in the machine has not been irrebutted by the company by filing counter affidavit. The State Commission had made a fair order to replace the machine within a period of two months of its order dated 22.12.2004, which was not accepted by the company. The poor complainant’s dream to eke out his livelihood by obtaining loan at a concessional rate of interest from the Nigam for the welfare of the Scheduled Caste people has been frustrated. The State Commission has also taken care of to award interest @ 6% only which is the rate at which the loan was taken and directed that the payment should be made to the Nigam only. Hence, we do not see any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent No. 1.