Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—The true import of the words of Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 1.2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, prescribing the pecuniary original jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain complaints is the threshold question in this case. Equally at issue is the somewhat ticklish question whether in a contract of sale of goods simpliciter, a mere delay in delivery thereof beyond the agreed date, would be a "deficiency" in "service" within the meaning of the Act aforesaid?

2. Since this complaint must found against both the aforesaid preliminary questions, it suffices to notice the facts relevant thereto with relative brevity. Dr. B.S. Gaba (through the National Consumer Awareness Group) has preferred the complaint on the allegation that he had approached M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (Respondent No. 1) for the supply of 18 Metric Tons of steel TOR for the construction of his hospital and after completion of requisite formalities, deposited a sum of Rs.1,53,800/- on 21st May, 1990 by Bank Draft. Consequent thereto, respondent No. 1 issued a delivery order on M/s Lauls Private Limited, Faridabad (Respondent No. 2) to deliv