1. The respondent is absent despite service. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has already been paid to him and despite accepting the same he has not turned up. He be proceeded against ex parte. The counsel for the petitioner heard at length. 2. On 4th December, 2001, Dr. D. J. De Souza, complainant/respondent had purchased a Erba Chem 5 Plus auto analyzer, 2001 model (No. 103741) for a sum of Rs.1,35,800/-. The same was installed on the same day. The complainant noticed that the second auto analyzer was not functioning properly and brought this fact to the notice of the petitioner-Engineer on or about 19.10.2001 i.e. within 15 days of the purchase of the machine. The complainant also wrote a letter to the petitioner that second auto analyser was defective specially in the kinetic mode. The complainant asked for the replacement or in the alternative, he would approach the consumer forum by 31.10.2001. Vide letter dated 16.11.2001, the complainant wrote to the petitioner that he was not interested in having the said defective instrument in his laboratory nor he was interested in having a replacement of the same. He required the petitioner to return his amount in the sum of Rs.1,35,800/- lakh. 3. On 20.12.2001, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint. The opposite party was directed to refund Rs.1,35,800/- being the purchase price of the medical instrument with interest @12% from the date of its purchase till actual payment. The opposite party was further directed to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation/damages on the ground of mental tension, anxiety, loss of professional income, inconvenience and hardship suffered by the complainant. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order and directed the complainant to refund the purchase price of Rs.1,35,800/- with interest at 6% from 20.12.2001 until payment plus damages/compensation of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant was also directed to return the second auto analyzer to the opposite party. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. She contended that there is no report of the expert that machine in question is defective. However, record reveals that the District Forum had appointed Dr.. Asha Naik as Commissioner in this case. She filed her report dated 25.1.2006 and 2.2.2006 stating that the second auto analyser was not fit for lab test in kinetic mode. At the request of the opposite party, the said doctor was also cross examined. The contention raised by the opposite party that he was not informed about the inspection by Dr. Asha Naik was given a short shrift as the District Forum had already directed both the parties to remain present before the Commissioner on 25.1.2006 at 10.00 a.m. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that they are ready to replace the machine. The case pertains to the year 2001. The machine is with the complainant. The complainant never signified his willingness for replacement of his machine. 7. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner does not carry any conviction. This is not a matter of new machine. This is the second hand machine. There is a marked difference between the new machine and old machine. What is the guarantee that the second hand machine will have no defect. The facts of this case speak for themselves. Within 15 days of availing the machine, the defects were detected. The petitioner should have returned the money after 15 days. 8. Under the circumstances, the order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. | 
