Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President — The appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tuticorin dated 1.12.92 in O.P. 11/92. The opposite party is the appellant.

2. The complainant who is an agriculturist has entered into an agreement with the opposite party Sugar Mills for growing sugarcane crops and selling sugarcanes to the mill. The mill used to supply pesticides, weedicides, fertilisers; seeds and all inputs for agricultural operation to the sugarcane growers. The grievance of the complainant is that he informed the opposite party that the crops are ready for harvest on 5.6.91, but the opposite party failed to turn out. The complainant was therefore to put heavy loss. Hence the claim for compensation. The opposite party denied the allegations. The District Forum found in favour of the complainant and ordered the opposite party to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- and costs of Rs. 250/- . It is this order that is challenged in the appeal.

3. The short question is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. As already pointed out, the complainant grows sugarc