Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—In our opinion the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is well founded in his contention that no part of the cause of action for the complaint in this case had arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Ahmed Nagar.

2. The transaction between the parties was in respect of the purchase of a motor car and the contract in relation there to was entered into in between. All the other details mentioned in the complaint as constituting the grievance of the complainant against the Opposite Parties namely harassment at the time of taking the vehicle for service etc. and the alleged levy of excess charge at the time when the service was carried out are all stated to have place at Pune. In these circumstances the District Forum, Ahmed Nagar rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudi cate upon the case and directed that the complaint be returned to the Complainant for presentation to the District Forum at Pune.

3. On appeal filed by the Complainant before the State Commission, Maharashtra at Bombay, the State Commission took the view that since the Complainant had sent a part of the price money for the car in the form of a dema