Thiru Justice A. Raman, President—The order passed by the lower Forum has to be set aside. The gist of the claim would show that the complainant is disputing the rate payable per ton of iron rods. Similarly, the complainant is finding fault with the opposite party because the plan submitted by him was rejected. The complainant and the opposite party have entered into an agreement with regard to the construction of a non-residential building. Therefore, the sum and substance of the complaint is one that cannot fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a question relating to the terms of the contract between the parties. As the National Commission has held in II (1993) CPJ 898, when the complainant is disputing the terms of agreement or alleging that the other side to the agreement has breached the conditions of the agreement, the matter would squarely fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. Here, a reading of the complaint shows clearly that the complainant is disputing the rate payable per ton of iron rods which is the main grievance and substance of the complaint. Therefore, it is a dispute relating to the terms of the contract between the parties