In a contract of sale of goods simpliciter, a mere delay in delivery thereof beyond the agreed date, would not be a "deficiency" in "service" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

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 deliver the goods. When the complainant approached the said respondent on the 23rd May, 1990. the latter asked him to wait for one week as the particular quality of steel was not ready for delivery at that time. Thereafter the complainant visited the said respondent for as many as six times, ending with the 9th September, 1990, but the goods were not delivered and no adequate response was either forthcoming to the registered letters written by him to both the respondents. On the aforesaid brief facts, the complainant claimed considerable loss in terms of interest on the deposited amount from the 21st May, 1990 at the rate of 18% till the date of the filing of the complaint on the 7th November, 1990, and further loss occasioned by harassment to the complainant due to the negligent, deficient and defective service. For the purposes of jurisdiction, it has been averred that the subject matter of the dispute is more than Rs. 1 lakh, but the specific prayer for compensation is the amount of interest on Rs. 1,53,800/- at the rate of 18% per annum, from the 21st May, 1990 till the delivery of the goods, and further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss caused due to negligent service.

3. In the reply to the complaint. Respondent No. 1 has raised a number of preliminary objections, to which reference is not necessary. On merits it is highlighted that 8 mm (Tor Steel) was not available with respondent No. 2, but an offer was made to lift the available quantity of 10 mm and 12 mm of Tor Steel forthwith and the balance later, which was, however, declined by the complainant on the ground that the whole supply should be made in a single lot. It is averred that there was a break-down in the mills of Respondent No. 2 in the month of July, 1990, rendering it beyond their control to make the supply, and even though the complainant was offered to take a refund against the surrender of the delivery order, yet he refused to do so. To accommodate the complainant, respondent No. 1 changed the source of delivery from respondent No. 2 to M/s A.K. Rolling Mills, Faridabad, and, ultimately, the complainant took the delivery of 15.055 Metric Tons (M.T.) against the 18 M.T. on the 7th December, 1990 and 19th December, 1990, and, thereafter addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 dated 22nd December, 1990 merely asking for a refund of the balance amount, which was duly made by cheque dated 29th December, 1990 and encashed by him. In view of the said delivery of material and the accepted refund amount, the complaint is alleged to have now become infructuous. It is also the stand that the jurisdiction of this Commission has been wrongly invoked by the complainant, and further there is no negligent, deficient or defective service warranting a relief under the Consumer Protection