None is present for the appellant and Respondent. Complainant had

filed this complaint against M/s Rai Udyog Ltd. and the complaint came to

be rejected at the stage of admission itself. Hence the complainant filed

this appeal. The complainant had alleged in the consumer complaint filed

before the District Forum, Nagpur that there was an agreement between

himself and Opponent M/s Rai Udyog Ltd. and the opponent had agreed to

sell to him Row house for an amount of Rs.5 lac and the complainant paid

Rs.10,000/- to the opponent on 2/9/2004. Thereafter, he did not pay

anything. The complainant alleged that opponent had issued a letter to him

that the cost of row house is 6 lac, and, therefore, he filed consumer

complaint claiming direction to the Opponent to sell row-house to him for

Rs.5 lac as agreed earlier. The Forum below, at the stage of admission

itself found that there was no agreement of sale between the parties. It

was submitted by the complainant that he had booked the Row-house by

paying Rs.10,000/- out of the total cost of the Row house of Rs.5 lac. But

there was no written agreement. No other evidence was adduced by the

complainant that opponent had agreed to sell row house for Rs.5 lac. The

forum relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in M.P.

Housing Board Vs. Pralhadkumar reported in CPJ 1999 III page 37

wherein Hon’ble National Commission clearly laid down that Consumer

Fora had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of pricing which is to be

decided by the parties themselves. It is the choice of the service provider

at which rate particular row house is to be sold to the person intending to

purchase the same. Observing so, the forum was pleased to dismiss the

complaint at the stage of admission itself. Aggrieved by this dismissal

original complainant filed this appeal.

We are finding that the order passed by the District Forum is just

and proper. There was no concluded contract between the parties

whereby appellant could claim that the Opponent had agreed to provide

him row house for Rs.5 lac and now he is demanding Rs.6 lac. The only

receipt produced on record is dated 2/9/2004. From this receipt, it appears

that Ganesh Sonkuwar had paid Rs.10,000/- by cheque No.27680 drawn

on ICICI Bank towards booking amount of R.H.No.B-5 in Rai Town. In

reply to the notice issued by the complainant, Rai Udyog Ltd.informed him

that the cost of the Row house + incidental charges were mutually decided

as Rs.5 lac + Rs.1 lac and as such, the total consideration for the row

house would be Rs.6 lac. Accordingly the Bank had sanctioned a loan to

the tune of Rs.5,45,000/- to the complainant as per their sanction letter

dated 20/9/2004, but in spite of that the complainant had not paid the

balance amount and as such, he was asked to pay Rs.6 lac within 7 days.

Thus, from the correspondence exchanged between the parties, it is clear

that the cost of Row house agreed by the complainant and Respondent

was Rs.6 lac and not Rs.5 lac as was contended by the appellant in his

complaint. Therefore, the forum below rightly dismissed the complaint at

the stage of admission itself. We find no substance in the appeal filed by

the original complainant.

Hence the order…

ORDER

1) Appeal is dismissed.

2) No order as to cost.

3) Inform the parties accordingly.

Delivered on 19/07/2011.