The central legal point established in the judgment is that a complainant, who is the seller of a product and does not engage the services of the opposite party for any consideration, does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.

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 sugarcane crops and as per the agreement entered into between him and the mill, he has to sell the sugarcane to the mill and the mill has to pay for the same. The mill supplies fertilisers etc., and pays cash to the complainant for cultivation and adjusts the same in the price of sugarcanes. As per this agreement, the complainant is the seller of the sugarcane and the mill is the purchaser. The complainant cannot be said to have been engaged the services of the opposite party for any consideration. The claim does not therefore fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.

4. This is the view taken by this Commission in K. Mayilsamy v. The Special Officer, Amaravathi Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. I (1993) CPJ 162 and again in Sakthi Sugars Ltd., v. Thiru Marudhu Pandian (A.P. 577/92 dated 24.5.93). It seems that these decisions were not brought the notice of the District Forum.

5. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed, but without costs throughout.

Appeal allowed.