Complainant/appellant purchased a colored photo washing and printing machine from Respondents No.3 & 4 on lease rent basis for an amount of Rs.7,07,200/- to earn his livelihood which was manufactured by Respondents No.1 & 2.  The machine was handed over to the appellant on 24.4.1996.  Immediately after supply of the machine, mechanic of Respondent No.1 was to come and install the machine, which was not done.  Despite having been informed several times, after 2½ months the machine was installed and made operational in July 1996 but the machine did not work satisfactorily and stopped working after 2-4 days.  Respondents were informed.  Alleging manufacturing defects, appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission.

          Respondents did not appear in spite of service and were proceeded ex parte.  Respondents have not put in appearance before us as well in spite of having been served by way of publication and were ordered to be proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16.7.2013.  State Commission, relying upon the pleadings and evidence led by the appellant and taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct, as the same had not been refuted by the respondent, allowed the complaint in the following terms :

“The present complaint of complaint is partly allowed against opposite party no.1 and 2. They are directed to provide/supply new machine in replacement of the old machine to the complaint within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of the order of this Commission, otherwise a compensation for an amount of Rupees one lakh be paid to the complainant from the abovementioned date. If the opposite party no.1 and 2 fail to comply with this order, in that case the complainant is entitled to get 4 percent annual simple interest on the abovesaid amount from the date of institution of the complainant and till the realization of the amount.

The opposite party no.3 and 4 all legally competent to recover the amount of loan along with interest which was paid to the complainant for purchase of the abovesaid machine an lease rent basis but while recovering such amount, the amount of installment paid by the complainant be adjusted according to rules.

This complainant is dismissed for the other relief sought from this Commission.”

          Perusal of this direction would show that the State Commission has directed the respondents to replace the old machine within 30 days failing which to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh.

          Counsel for the appellant submits that the State Commission should have given a direction to the respondents to either provide/supply a new machine in replacement of the old machine and, on failure to do so, pay the price of the machine along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh; that the State Commission has erred in restricting the rate of interest to 4%.  We find substance in this submission.  Order of the State Commission is modified.  Respondents are directed to either provide/supply a new machine to replace the defective machine within 30 days of the passing of this order or in the alternative to pay the price of the machine i.e. Rs.7,07,200/- to the appellant along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh.

          Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.