This will be an informal argument, so you can use it to build a proof.
What does it mean that $n_j \to \infty$ as $j \to \infty$?
This means that, given any positive number $\varepsilon$, there is a tail of the sequence above $\varepsilon$. In other words there are, at most, a finite number of elements of the sequence below $\varepsilon$.
What is the negation of this?
Well, this means that there is a particular positive number $\varepsilon_*$ such that, at most, a finite number of elements of the sequence are bigger than $\varepsilon_*$. So the sequence is bounded above (not necessarily by $\varepsilon_*$, can you see this?). But this is a sequence of natural numbers, hence bounded below by $0,$ so we have a bounded sequence of natural numbers.
What can we deduce from this?
Well, a bounded sequence of natural numbers means that there are only a finite number of possible values that the elements of the sequence can take, say $V=\{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_m \} \subset \mathbb{N}.$
Let $$W = \Big\{|\frac{1}{v_i} - \frac{1}{v_j}| : v_i,v_j \in V, v_i \neq v_j \Big\},$$
the set of distances between elements of the sequence with distinct values. Since there are only a finite number of elements in $V$, the set $W$ is also finite, so take the minimum of these differences, $w_* = \min W.$
What to do with this? The Cauchy hypothesis
Now, let $\epsilon > 0$ such that $\epsilon < w_*$. Since $(n_j)_{j \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a Cauchy sequence, there is a tail of the sequence such that, taking any 2 elements of the tail, their distance is less than (or equal to) $\varepsilon$, which is less than $w_*.$
Now the concluding insight
Suppose that $n_i, n_j$ are on the tail given by the Cauchy assumption, can $n_i \neq n_j?$
Edit:
$$n_j \to \infty \iff \forall \varepsilon \, \exists N : j\geq N \implies n_j > \varepsilon$$
so, the negation would be
$$n_j \not \to\infty \iff \exists \varepsilon \, \forall N :j\geq N \, \land n_j \leq \varepsilon. $$
Note that the statement after $:$ is a statement of the form $p \to q$ which is true if $ \, \lnot (p \land \lnot q$), so negating it gets you $p \land \lnot q$.
Hope this helps :)