D.P.S. Choudhary, J. (President)

1. O.P. is the appellant who has preferred the appeal against the order dated 30.11.1995 passed by District Forum, Vaishali at Hazipur in Complaint Case No. 22/1995 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant besides interest @ 18% per annum and also allowed litigation cost of Rs. 500/-. This order was passed by two learned members of the Forum. The President of the Forum passed dissenting order. The brief fact of the case is that he entered into an agreement with the O.P. (appellant) on 4.2.1991 to the effect that O.P. would sublet one shop with pucca roof of holding No. 143 for which the complainant had agreed to pay in all Rs. 25,000/-. As first instalment, the complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- to the O.P. and the remaining amount was to be paid in two instalment of Rs. 7,000/- and 8,000/- respectively. It was also agreed that by date 30.4.1991 the shop shall be handed over to the complainant. It is alleged that by this date the shop could not be constructed because the complainant failed to pay remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the O.P. The contention of the complainant was that O.P. failed to execute the agreement; therefore, he should be directed to refund back Rs. 10,000/- with interest to the complainant or to hand over the constructed shop to him.

2. The O.P. appeared and submitted that the agreement did not come into effect because the complainant did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- as unless he pays this amount the shop could not be constructed.

3. During the course of hearing of the complaint the payment of Rs. 10,000/- as advance by the complainant to the O.P. was not denied. It was also not in dispute that remaining Rs. 15,000/- was not paid by the complainant and the shop has not been handed over to the complainant.

4. In substance the complainant has filed the case before the Consumer Forum for the enforcement of the terms of the contract in between the parties and in the alternative for the order of refund of the advance money with interest.

5. The majority judgment of the District Forum held that complainant's case is maintainable and directed the O.P. - appellant to refund back Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 18%.

6. The main contention raised before us by the appellant is that this case is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as relief claimed for is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant wants the enforcement of the terms of the contract. He does not allege any deficiency in the service of the O.P. - appellant. The terms of agreement is not accepted by the O.P. - appellant and there is a dispute in between the parties with regard to alleged deed of agreement. Such dispute is not to be decided by the Consumer Forum. The complainant has to seek redressal before the Civil Court if he wants the contract to be enforced or if he wants to allow advance money to be refunded back.

7. We have enquired from the respondent-complainant as under which provision of the Consumer Protection Act this case is maintainable before the Consumer Forum but we would not get any satisfactory reply. From the relief claimed on behalf of the complainant and after going through the complaint petition we are in agreement with the contention made on behalf of the appellant. The main contention of the complainant is that O.P. - appellant did not abide by the terms of the contract entered between the parties and he has violated the terms of agreement. He did not hand over the constructed pucca shop to the complainant in spite of taking advance of Rs. 10,000/-. The remaining amount was to be paid to him only after the shop is handed over to the complainant. The O.P. - appellant denied that as per contract the entire amount of Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid to the O.P. for the construction of the shop and only after receiving this amount the shop was to be handed over to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant has paid only Rs. 10,000/-, therefore, the complainant has violated the terms of the contract. From the contention of both the parties, it is clear that this case relates with the breach of terms of the contract and the relief sought for is enforcement of the contract in between the parties. Such reliefs are not within the purview of the Consumer Forum. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and the majority judgment of the District Forum, which is under appeal, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court if so advised for the redressal of his grievance.