Jindal Pipes Limited, which was the opposite party No.1, has filed the present Revision Petition against an Interim Order passed by the State Commission in Original Complaint No.07/2004 decided on 11.4.2005. 

-2-

          Briefly stated, the facts are that M/s East Bourne Hotels Private Limited, Khalini, Shimla – respondent No.1 – filed a complaint with the allegation of defective material, namely GI Pipes purchased by the complainant and bearing the Make ‘JINDAL ‘B’ G.I. Pipes’ to be used for the supply of cold water to the bathroom, kitchen, pantry, toilets etc. in the premises of the complainant located at Shimla.  In the reply filed by the respondents, a preliminary objection was taken that the State Commission at Shimla would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the goods were purchased from Pt. Khushi Ram & Company and sold in Chandigarh.  The State Commission by the impugned order has overruled the said objection by observing that the pipes in question having been purchased for being installed in the bathrooms etc. for supply of cold water in the premises at Shimla, would give rise to a part of cause of action and since the pipes were to be used in Shimla, a part of cause of action had arisen.  Another objection taken by the petitioner was regarding the maintenance of the complaint before the consumer fora.  According to the petitioner, the goods were purchased by the complainant for

-3-

commercial purposes and, therefore, the complaint would not be maintainable under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The State Commission has overruled this objection as well.   Since no decision has been taken against the Interim Order passed by the State Commission determining the two preliminary objections taken by the petitioner, present Revision Petition has been filed.

          State Commission relying upon Clause C of Section 11, Sub-Section II, which provides that the complaint can be filed where the cause of action wholly or in part arise, has held that part of action has arisen in Shimla as the goods were to be used in Shimla.

          We do not agree with the finding recorded by the State Commission.  No part of cause of action had arisen in Shimla.  The dispute was regarding the quality of pipes purchased at Chandigarh where the contract of sale ad purchase had taken place.  If the preposition laid down by the State Commission is accepted, it would lead to prospective result.  The goods were manufactured at Faridabad, sold by the purchaser in Delhi and then taken to Orissa, Bhuveneshwar, the use thereof would not give rise to cause of action

-4-

at Bhuveneshwar.  The cause of action would arise at the place where the goods were purchased or sold and not at the place where the goods are used.

          For the reasons stated above, the order of the State Commission is set aside.  The complaint filed by the respondent is directed to be transferred to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at UT, Chandigarh for a fresh decision.  All the contentions including the maintainability of the complaint for the goods having been pursed for a ‘Commercial Purpose’ are left OPEN.

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission, UT Chandigarh on 03.2.2010.

          Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla is directed to transfer the records of the complaint to the Registrar of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at UT, Chandigarh.  The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at UT, Chandigarh on receipt of the record, will assign a fresh number to the complaint and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.

-5-

          Copy of this order be sent to all the concerned parties free of costs.

            Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.