S. N. Phukan, President. - This complaint petition has been filed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency(DRDA), Karbi Anglong District, Diphu against Modi Xerox Ltd. and its Branch Manager at Guwahati.

2. The complainant purchased Modi Xerox Machine Model-l025 Zoom from the opt. parties on 29-3-1990 by payment an amount of Rs. 1,12,860/- including an amount of Rs. 7,000/- for spares and service maintenance agreement. The said agreement has been annexed as Annexure-II to the petition and during the course of evidence marked as Exhibit-2. Relevant clause of the said agreement inter alia, provides that repair, service and supply and spare parts required for normal functioning of the machine at the Customer’s request shall be provided by Modi Xerox within a reasonable time of receipt of communication from the Customer. From the first week of July, 1990 the machine was out of order. Thereafter, it has been alleged that the complainant made several telephonic calls regarding non-functioning of the machine to the Branch Manager at Guahati without any result. On 18-8-1990 the complainant sent a telegram to the Gauhati Office requesting the Company to send Engineers to attend the machine without any result. The said telegram is marked as exhibit-3, It is further alleged that the complainant himself visited, the office of the Company at Gauhati on 12-9-1990requesting the Branch Manager to send an Engineer to rectify the defect which was lying out of order for last two months and he was assured that steps would be taken within 2/3 days. As no action was taken, another letter was' sent on 17-9-1990 annexed as Annexure-IV and marked as Exhibit-4. This time also no action was taken. Again another telegram was sent making the same request on 11-10-1990 which is annexed as Annexure- V to the petition. and marked as Exhibit-5. Thereafter, again the complainant visited the Guwahati Office of the Company on 15-10-1990 and met the In-charge requesting him to depute one Engineer. A promise was made on behalf of the Company, but nothing was done. Thereafter, on 29-10-1990 the complainant had telephonic discussions with the representative of the Company and a promise was made that the Machine will be sent within 24 hours. It has been alleged that inaction of the Company is complete violation of the service agreement which was valid for a period of one year. It has been alleged that the DRDA is responsible to execute all the anti-poverty schemes in the rural areas of the District and non-functioning of the Machine adversely affected the efficiency of the office. It has also been alleged that the complainant had to undertake photo stat works from the market during the above period of four months and spending about Rs. 11,000/- for that purpose. In the present petition, the complainant has prayed for return of the price of the Machine with 18% interest and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and any further relief that the Commission may grant.

3. In the written statement, filed by the Branch Manager of the Company at Gauhati, it has been denied that the Machine was out of order from the first week of July, 1990. It has also been ,denied that the complainant made several telephonic calls to the Gauhati office alleging that the machine was out of order. It has also been stated that for the whole month of July and August, there is no record in the Gauhati Office of the Company regarding any complaint by the complainant. It may be stated that in the written statement sending of the telegram dated 18-8-1990(exhibit-3) has not been denied or disputed specifically. It has also been denied that the complainant visited the office of the Company at Gauhati on 12-9-1990. Receipt of the letter dated 17-9-1990. vide exhibit-4; has been admitted, but it has been stated that it was received only on 26-10-1990. In para 8 of the written statement, it has been averred that the first complaint from the complainant was received over telephone