Heard counsel for the petitioner.  Notice was sent to the respondent on condonation as also on admission of the matter.  The respondent has objected to the condonation application on the ground that there is no justifiable explanation to condone the delay. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the delay was on account of his going out of station, which of course cannot be a good ground for condonation.  However, in the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to condone the delay on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- which has already been deposited by the petitioner. The condonation application is allowed on cost of Rs.10,000/-.  The said amount shall be transferred to Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the State Commission was not justified in fixing the liability on the present petitioner.   On merits, it is urged that the warranty in connection with the Xerox copier machine was already over.  However, admittedly, the petitioner had taken the Xerox copier machine for repairs on 13.8.2004 and the same has not been returned.  These facts are recorded by the State Commission in para 8 of the impugned order.  The State Commission has also held that the provisions of SICA  do not come to the rescue of the opposite party as it was repealed by the Special Provisions Repeal Act, 2003, whereas, the authorities created under the Act i.e. BIFR and the Appellate Authority were abolished.  The issue relating to jurisdiction was rightly rejected by the State Commission. The fact that the Xerox copier machine is lying with the petitioner for repairs from 2004 and has not been returned so far itself amounts to grave deficiency on the part of the petitioner for which the State Commission has imposed paltry compensation of Rs.20,000/- and that the petitioner/opposite party would be liable to return the Xerox copier machine in working condition. Counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant be made liable to pay the cost of repairs, which we are not inclined to do, since, the petitioner has kept the Xerox copier machine with it from 2004 and the complainant has been deprived of the use of the said machine since then.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the State Commission is just, fair and equitable and does not call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction  under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission.  The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.